dagblog - Comments for "Morality Tale Economics"

I have been thinking about

Richard Day — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 02:26:40 +0000

I have been thinking about this subject.

JOHN JAY

John Jay, a Founding Father, second governor of New York and first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court:

The owners of this Country ought to rule it.

http://www.salon.com/2015/03/17/radicals_of_a_different_sort_how_the_reactionary_rights_plotting_to_steal_the_white_house/?source=newsletter

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/03/16/3633968/50-years-ago-lyndon-johnson-delivered-perfectly-radical-speech-presidential-history/

I cannot get italics going right now, but you know what I mean.

John Jay was a giant among men. And I respect him, even as a peasant.

He fought against slavery with persons of note including Aaron Burr.

And John Jay fought against slavery in NY even though he owned slaves.

Eventually, of course, slavery was abolished in NY.

But step into the shoes of some of these folks.

Imagine that you wake up like I did at the age of two, and there are slaves and plantations and such that existed.

And then, you are part and parcel of this culture.

Like the South understood, there would be nothing wrong with this system just as if you had been born in Rome, a couple thousand years ago.

Well Jay just like Jefferson in Virginia, fought against slavery.

Only NY finally arrived at the 'right' decision.

THE OWNERS OF THIS COUNTRY MUST RULE IT.

Historically of course, most states understood that only those people with property, whatever the hell that means, could vote.

And, historically the legislators of the various states would appoint a Senator.

This means, by those who had means, would control the US Senate until the Constitutional Amendment making Senators appointed by the CITIZENS.

AGAIN, John Jay, put into his historical context WAS A LIBERAL. hahahahah

It just got to me that we can go right to John Jay (as well as Jefferson) to find the anti-aristocracy and anti-clerical source of our Constitution that actually knew that we need a new mercantile class to rule the peasants.

It all makes sense.

And the political right, feels this same desire.

We must keep the peasants from revolting because the peasants are revolting

THE END.

Thanks, I really did not feel like doing a blog today.

hhahahahahahahah

I loved that "while not

Rain,adustbowlstory — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 15:49:29 +0000

In reply to Morality Tale Economics

I loved that "while not sharing your coat"!

Poor children have moral

rmrd0000 — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 04:02:02 +0000

In reply to I just read this over at TMP

Poor children have moral defects. A wealthy teen who killed four people while driving drunk suffered from "Affluenza". Poverty is a morality problem, wealth is the real burden in life. The father of the teen was an excellent role model.

The whole phrase "welfare" is

Michael Maiello — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 03:54:20 +0000

In reply to I just read this over at TMP

The whole phrase "welfare" is problematic. What we have is publicly funded unemployment insurance. The premiums are part of your tax bill. Nobody should feel any more shame for using that insurance than they do for using medical or car insurance.

This gets to the "dignity" angle you've both been talking about. It's really the answer.

I just read this over at TMP

trkingmomoe — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 03:16:18 +0000

In reply to This sound like a wonderful

I just read this over at TMP cafe just now.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/david-brooks-mistaking-povertys-symptoms-for-causes

In other words, we’re better, smarter, fairer actors when we have basic stabilities—health, money, care, etc.—in place. Remove those, and our sanity frays at the edges. Our judgment gets cloudy. Desperation is no catalyst for self-discipline. This is a basic principle of human behavior—especially when we’re trying to understand the choices of the poor, who face comprehensive threats to their basic human dignity.

And yet, there’s a resurgent effort to flip that basic equation on its head by suggesting that the poor won’t build stable families and break out of poverty unless we shame them to higher moral standards. (snip)

That’s how privilege works. Well-heeled, well-educated folks can weather marital collapse and a fair degree of anarchy in their intimate lives. Their privilege gives them a cushion, gives them room to snag extra bits of short-term pleasure (or indiscretion) without sacrificing much long-term good.

In truth this is what I am saying. All the small stuff is big stuff when you are poor. Everyday things that most people take for granted can be a challenge and you have to work very hard to make those everyday things happen.

I blame all this on Reagan's dog whistle "welfare queens." and the country's racism. Too many want to dehumanize poverty instead of admitting we all need to do more to change it.

This sound like a wonderful

Michael Wolraich — Mon, 16 Mar 2015 23:26:59 +0000

In reply to Community organizing in areas

This sound like a wonderful operation. I love the focus on basic human dignity. If the country could move beyond the interminable culture vs. resources debate and work together on nurturing human dignity, which needs culture and resources, America would be a much better place.

Community organizing in areas

trkingmomoe — Mon, 16 Mar 2015 22:13:05 +0000

In reply to With a better economy and

Community organizing in areas like sustainable gardening, children play areas, organized sports, support for mothers and building a community centers. Education for adults in areas of interest, such as, home repair, photography, cooking, art and needlework. Summer programs for kids and community street fairs. Community health center with counseling. Sewing circles to make needed things for new moms, wheelchair bound people and warm clothing for children. Putting pressure on slum lords to repair property.

Many years ago I read a book written by a retired Principle of a elementary school in one of D.C. poorest neighborhoods. She started out asking for washers, and dryers from local charities. When she got them she then started asking local charities for donated clothing for children including new socks and underwear. She cleaned out the storage area of the gym and got some moms to help her sort through all of that. This school had a shower room. She wrote to companies that made soap and hygiene products and begged.

When the kids arrived at school dirty and neglected, they were offered a shower and clean cloths. She wanted the kids to feel safe at school and everyone would be treated with dignity and respect. The way she did it was to make the kids feel good about their appearance. The kids that had their cloths changed were given their old cloths back clean to wear home and a clean outfit to wear the next day. Kids that never could make it to school on time was given an cheap wind up alarm clock to use and taught about time.

Grades improved, test scores improved and attendance. Parents took an interest in the school and raised money for this. Older children that had moved on to middle school and high school kept returning to ask for things they needed and would show off their report cards. They would also mentor the younger children. Many went on to trade schools and college.

This principle and her teachers fought hard at school board meetings to keep the school open a few extra hours a day to keep this program up.

I don't remember the name of the book or the author because it has been a long time.

That is some of the ways the change and break the cycle of chronic poverty and crime.

Thanks, man!

Michael Maiello — Mon, 16 Mar 2015 14:32:23 +0000

In reply to PS Happy birthday, dude!

Thanks, man!

My point was that resources

Bruce Levine — Mon, 16 Mar 2015 13:35:50 +0000

In reply to Without going back for

My point was that resources alone are not sufficient eliminating poverty.

This is an important point that I may have failed to acknowledge in my comment below. I think it's fair to say that resources are a necessary but not sufficient component to eliminating poverty.

PS Happy birthday, dude!

Michael Wolraich — Mon, 16 Mar 2015 13:31:40 +0000

In reply to Without going back for

PS Happy birthday, dude!