Today I called my senator, here's what I said.

I'm calling to urge my senator to stop this healthcare travesty. We need real reform, not more compromise. I know that it's people like myself who end up dying and suffering over proposals like this one. For too long, necessary steps have been blocked by the vested interests who have grown rich off the labor of common, hard-working folks. At the same time these same individuals continuously promise us more than they ever deliver: in workplace safety, in food safety, in living wages, affordable housing-any housing!-yes, healthcare, or automobile safety, and on and on. More compromise in this case means more illness, more unnecessary pain and anguish, more death for people like myself. Our only offense is that we are forced by this system to work more than is needed to get less than is deserved. How can you honestly tell someone with two or three jobs that we don't deserve to have healthcare? That we are unworthy, just because we weren't born with a certain skin color or the "right background"? This, as with so many other things in our country, is a problem we are too long in finding an ethical, decent solution for. Instead we are forced to listen to more talk and excuses about "economic interests", about how "businesses can't survive", or "it's unfair to insurance companies". These entities are not alive, they don't matter when measured against the death of a mother or father whose disease was not treated in time, of one more child who goes hungry to pay the insurance, or one more brother or sister who slides into poverty under mounting medical bills. It's time to stop this insane practice of "we can't", it's time to say not only "we should", or even, "we can". It's time to say, "we will."

Public Education v. Private Interests

There is a move by a fairly large group in the U.S. to privatise primary and secondary education, thereby making the ability to pay requisite for an adequate education.  This attack on public education follows on the heels of privitising other governmental functions such as the military, retirement, and utilities, all with consequences we have experienced.  The established order of the public education system is to provide this basic and necessary service to children without regard for ability to pay.  This has been our choice because being adequately educated is intrinsic to the ability of citizens to participate in a democracy.  It is untenable and undesirable for all to privatise this system and I include those trying to enact it.  Firstly, the promise of compulsory universal public education is to better not solely the individuals, but rather society at large by improving each participant's interactions and ability to contribute.  The goal being that as each member is elevated, we raise the collective society that much more: the sum is greater than its parts.  Secondly, having a minimum level of education  increases the satisfaction, self-worth, and capability of each citizen.  When people are educated they are (and feel) better prepared to discuss ideas and have opinions rather than trusting someone else's argument or spouting nonsense based in ignorance. It is a basic drive, as a social species, to relate to others and it should be rewarding and uniting to do so. Third, the argument that private education is better than public is nonsense.  The differences between the two are largely cosmetic and the "improvement" seen in private schools would be mirrored in public schools if some small changes were made there. Public schools are overwhelmed by the sheer number of students, often who have been unsupported at home and in the community.  Many of these children model behaviour which is counterproductive to their own needs and disruptive in the school environment. If corrections were made in these areas, public schools could be as "successful" as the private ones.  The secret motive behind the push to privatise is to further separate individuals and communities and this is the opposite of what we need.  Integrating with others and establishing cooperation are key components in overcoming many of the problems in society today.  If we begin to separate people more strongly into classes even earlier we will only strengthen the attitudes behind and problems with declining advancement.  I believe there are a few who are cognisant of these factors and are counting on these effects.  It is to the capitalistic benefit of the few to be able to easily manipulate and control the majority.  It is not, however, an improvement to their personal, spiritual, relational, or integral well-being.  For these reasons, I would stand with those who oppose all "voucher programs" and any such thing which undermines the promise of education for and improvement of all.  This means that "private schools" may want to watch their backs, I might have a post about them later.

Choice and Consequence

Capitalism is not a system that allows people to exercise free will, even though it is supposedly based on choice. We are told that we are free, that because we can pay for what we want and because the capitalist system provides so many options, that we have real choices.  However, all the choices boil down to the same one: pay or die.  If you can't afford food, you starve; if you don't have the cash for health care, you'll get or stay sick; when you need a vacation, you'd better have plenty of cash.  The problems of capitalism are ameliorated by factors like insurance, subsidies, and donations, but these are not solutions.  Also, the illusion of choice is exposed by having only those select "approved" choices. In this I mean not that we should be able to break laws or do without them altogether, those are collective decisions and necessary for societal well being.  I mean simply that true innovation and free thought is stifled.  We are caught up in the system and have to work within its confines.  This is due to spending so much energy just to meet our "cash needs" (food, clothing, shelter, recreation) there isn't much left over for exploration.  There is only funding for research that "those in charge" allow for, and they only want to pay for things that will get them more money and power. If we want to do something, we have to get their permission and support.  If we want to operate outside of their purview, we still have to work inside the system and have those same  "choices".  It is a self-fulfilling, self-perpetuating cycle whereby the more one plays the game, the more the game controls the player.

Owned!

Capitalism is predicated on the idea of ownership; that something, indeed everything, can be owned. Ownership indicates the ability to control. This means that if you own something, you determine what is done with it. This applies to a tool, an animal (even another human animal), territory, and-in recent times-an idea or words. Without this control things are subject to discussion, we have to agree with others about what happens, and be able to trust others. This is seemingly intolerable to many people, possibly from fear one may not get everything one wants. Leaving aside how great an insecurity with the world this concept reveals, let's examine what it means for us in a more concrete manner.

First we have to accept that we are able to own/control things outside of our individual selves. We then set about making sure that everyone knows we control these things, that no one else controls them, and that we can get control of other things in exchange for those we already control. This is the essence of capitalism, the bare-bones explanation. With all that activity, it seems like we ought to have something to show for it; that at the end of titling, registering, trademarking, copyrighting, and suing over rights to something, we must have a sense of accomplishment and fulfillment. Look at those who do own, then those who own more, and then see how relaxed and fulfilled the majority of these people are. Ownership, in truth, leads to anxiety and insecurity; it means the constant worry about what is owned being taken from us. In the words of Chuck Palahniuk, "The things you own end up owning you."

Volunteers Needed, Inquire Within.

The funny thing is that volunteers often do better work, are more dedicated, and are willing to work harder even though they know they will receive absolutely no monetary compensation for their efforts. When there is an emergency, disaster, or just a need for many hands, volunteers are there. When great change is required, volunteers step up; all social movements have been driven by people that do not get paid. That means the most important events in our history from ending slavery to overthrowing dictatorial governments were all instigated and carried through by volunteers. This gives lie to the belief that extrinsic, monetary rewards are the best way to motivate people and improve results. Take that, capitalist model.