"The beauty of the dream vanished, and breathless horror and disgust filled my heart."
--Mary Shelley's Victor Frankenstein
Accomplishing a logic-defying feat, the wealthiest nation in the world has "attained" the highest rate of homelessness amongst developed countries. 3.5 million human beings experience homelessness each year in the United States. Almost a million are homeless every night (1).
In the most heavily militarized nation in the history of the human race, 30% of its homeless men are military veterans (2). What happened to "support the troops"? Obviously once military personnel return home, the slogan changes to "good riddance to bad rubbish".
Ready for some "shock and awe" on the home front? According to the National Mental Health Association, "on any given night, 1.2 million children are homeless" in the United States.
And what is one to make of a self-proclaimed Christian nation (overflowing with material resources) that allows such travesties of economic justice to persist?
How can a Christian nation ignore the compassionate teachings of Jesus?
"For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.' Then the righteous will answer him, "Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?' And the king will answer them, "Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.'"
Yes, it is morally and ethically abhorrent that there are indigent, starving, and homeless human beings in a society of people awash in a sea of wealth.
Yet it gets even uglier...
According to Sixty Minutes, the latest extreme means for teens to alleviate adolescent ennui involves savagely beating the most vulnerable human beings in the United States.
This so-called "bum hunting" has resulted in the murder of at least one homeless person per month for the past 60 consecutive months. Accurate statistics are elusive at best (since few people notice when a homeless person "disappears"). However, the National Coalition for the Homeless determined that 500 of its lost souls have been victims of "bum hunting" since 1999. 180 of them met violent deaths as a result of this appalling blood sport in which the hunters stalk human prey (3).
What could inspire children to commit such depraved, barbarous acts?
Sixty Minutes suggested that a wildly popular DVD series called Bum Fights was the principal catalyst for "bum hunting". Apparently, the producers of Bum Fights paid homeless individuals a pittance (and bribed them with alcohol) to brawl and attempt ridiculous stunts similar to those shown in the Jackass series. Bum Fight movies also involve a character dubbed the "Bum Hunter". In producing Bum Fights, the "Bum Hunter" attacked randomly selected sleeping homeless people, forcibly restrained them, and sealed their mouths with duct tape.
23 year old Ryan McPherson was the producer of Bum Fights. He and two partners sold the rights to their creation for $1.5 million (4). Sixty Minutes interviewed two of their victims, including a homeless man named Rufus, who confirmed that McPherson paid them less than $10 and a "couple of beers" to fight and do degrading stunts.
This is, bar none, the best essay I've read in many years, and I read almost constantly.
My personal understanding of how genocide occurs with biological regularity is something like this:
We are not an ecologically viable species. Ecologists define a viable species as one that controls its population growth in accordance with available resources and never overpopulates. Theoretically, such a species can survive forever. An ecologically nonviable species, on the other hand, has cyclical overpopulation peaks accompanied by large die-offs, which in humans we often call genocides.
Immediately after a large die-off, such as WWII, resources are plentiful. To the survivors, who now have plenty of land, jobs, and other resources compared to before the die-off when such things were scarce and competition for them was fierce, life once more become precious and they say things like, "Never again," and "Lest we forget," as they rush to replace those who have died with a new population. There is a baby boom and children are often valued and loved.
This continues for about 72 or 73 years (the cycle usually quickens, so the time between die-offs often shortens) until we have overpopulated once more. Then land and jobs are again scarce, competition for resources once more becomes fierce, and the value of life, which has become an excess commodity, cheapens. Then the genocides begin, but most people are too busy struggling to survive and care for their families to do much about it, or even to notice.
Then the next big die-off occurs and the cycle repeats, except for the final cycle when the population becomes extinct. In laboratory-raised species of amoebae, the cause of the die-offs that accompany cyclical overpopulation peaks in nonviable species is usually that they produce more wastes than their environment can dispose of and they are poisoned by their own wastes.
In our case, not only have we been polluting our earth, water, and air, but we have also been producing radioactive wastes with half-lives longer than our species has been in existence, that we have absolutely no way to dispose of. Even if we knew how to dispose of them, at this point in time we no longer have the money to even try.
So history repeats. And repeats. And repeats. Until it doesn't any more. Perhaps there are more viable species than our own which will survive, maybe even those despised cockroaches.
There are people who believe that the theory of ecological viability does not apply to humans, that we are exempt from it. This is somewhat akin to creation "science," in saying that we are special and different from the rest of nature. It does not venture to explain why then, we seem to have sexual and reproductive characteristics similar to those of other living creatures.
I don't think that we were necessarily meant to be a nonviable species. I think one of the things that led us to this state of affairs was patriarchy, which subjugated females so that they did not have the knowledge and power necessary to control reproductive rates in accordance with available resources. Another thing was civilization, which is predicated upon uncontrolled growth. Uncontrolled growth, by definition, is a malignancy. So our ability to perpetuate ourselves without genocides seems to have fallen prey to hierarchies and something mislabelled "progress."
In my humble opinion, if we continue to be socially and culturally hierarchal rather than egalitarian, and we persist in pursuing what we call progress, we shall soon cease to exist altogether. And given that we keep repeating the same mistakes and never seem to learn from them, it might really be a case of good riddance to bad rubbish.
by
Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments)
on Thursday, October 5, 2006 at 3:23:11 PM
of this stereotype prejudice we have against the 'upper class', and those with
money. It is just as 'stupid' as any stereotype prejudice, or discrimination against any other groups, such as 'blacks', or 'jews'. But because you are forbidden to discriminate against certain minorities, you chose a group that is not on the forbidden 'menu'?
Take 'intelligence' as an example. Intelligence has nothing to do with education. It is evenly spread through all classes, independent of their life styles, or the money they have in their pockets. I know more stupid 'PhD's' than I do 'blue collar workers'. I am even wondering if Higher Education makes you more stupid! And it is the same with 'morality', 'ethics', and 'empathy'. Except, when you are in a position of 'insecurity', it is sometimes difficult to be what you were really meant to be. 'Insecurity' and 'fear' are not nurturing to the best of one's character traits. On the other hand, people with money are often much more critical, and demanding, and strict with their young. They often do the exact opposite of spoiling their kids, and bathing them in luxury. They often teach them twice as much about responsibility. They are in a much better position to have, and practice, and live according to their higher values. It is nonsense that the more money you have, the greedier you become. This may be in part true for some 'nouveau rich' but it certainly is not for those families that have had wealth in their families for a long time. these families are often much more tolerant and understanding of
people who are neither 'normal', or 'average', or in need than anyone from the 'Middle Class'. The 'Middle Class' has the least tolerance for anything 'inferior'. It has also been my experience that people with money feel much less entitled than those who never pay a penny for anything, and are solely supported by government funds. That makes sense..psychologically. Anyway, i am tired of this topic. Think about it, and know what you are talking about before you do.
by
Katrin R. (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 514 comments)
on Thursday, October 5, 2006 at 5:59:18 PM
that the ultra-rich and the multinational corporations should pay little or no taxes (and sometimes receive government welfare in the form of subsidies) as is presently the case, while the working class is taxed to the max?
You think it is right for Bush to ask the poor, the working class, and the middle class to support the troops, while exempting the rich from that patriotic responsibility?
You think that if a genius is born into a poor family, they shouldn't have a right to the same education as a moron born into a wealthy family?
You think about it, Katrin. If you think that simply because they inherited a fortune, a person has a right to buy a third SUV, a second yacht, and a fifth vacation home, while others who work full time for minimum wage cannot even afford health care for their kids, you are entitled to your opinion. Plenty of people think the same way you do. But I'm also entitled to my opinion, and I don't agree.
Let me tell you a little story. I used to go to a different senior center than the one I'm near now, and it had a wealthier clientele. One day I was sitting around waiting for bingo to begin and a gentleman was boastly loudly about how he had made $45,000 in online stock trades that day. I happened to know that he had inherited his money rather than working for it, but I said nothing. Then he started ranting about how his neighbor's son was an alcoholic and was getting disability payments and how it wasn't fair. At this point I couldn't help myself, and I observed quietly, "Life isn't fair."
Do you know that this "gentleman" not only went ballistic and started screaming at me, he also tried to get the management to ban me from the senior center? Fortunately for me, several other people had overheard the entire conversation and I was allowed to remain a paying member and to continue to play bingo there every Monday afternoon.
The way I see it, it isn't fair that one person inherits money without working for it, while another person, equally or perhaps even more worthy, works hard, has a physical accident that prevents them from continuing to work, and turns to alcohol when they end up on disability. Life isn't fair. And I have an absolute right to say so.
by
Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments)
on Thursday, October 5, 2006 at 9:03:14 PM
The people who work the hardest, and who are the least educated...they are Bush's NR.1 supporters. Generally, people pay the taxes they are told to pay.
Do you expect 'well off' people to gather in a protest, because they were undercharged? Do you think they would gather in a protest, if their taxes went up...and this would be more fair? No! They would pay the higher taxes as they are told.
Must I hate every 'beautiful' woman, and love every 'ugly' woman in order to conform to your 'beliefs'? In fact, I am perhaps one of the very few people who has empathy for 'beautiful women', and without being one myself. First, they are surrounded by so many men, that they do not have a chance to look elsewhere. They barely have the energy to fight off, or chose among those men who are surrounding them. In addition to that, 'the beauty' will never
know if she was really loved for herself, or only because she is beautiful. And on top of all this, she knows that she will lose her 'beauty' with age. She will lose all she was both loved and hated for all her life by people like some macho, or you. She may even have to become a bitch, because she feels so insecure and unloved for her inner self, and which she never had a chance to develop.
Is it fair that some women are ugly, and others are beautiful? No, but it would be much less of a problem, if people weren't as superficial as you are, and judged only on conditions of 'external looks'. " The beauty is evil, and the other is 'good."
This man you are talking about? One man? One single man who lucked out in the stock market that day, and who said something about.....and who propably also is a 'jerk'? Why don't you focus on how the story ended, and the fact that the other people supported you. '95% of what people do actually has nothing to do with you.' And if I put myself in the position of a rich person, your judgement would not exactly be encouraging. I would try to stay away from people who hate me, and discriminate against me, and without knowing 'shit' about me. I would be afraid to give my money to you.
by
Katrin R. (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 514 comments)
on Thursday, October 5, 2006 at 10:01:35 PM
The rich need your money in order to stay rich and get richer.
I never asked for your money and will never do so. I am not rich and I do not want to be rich.
I personally know many hardworking people who never got much of an education who do not support Bush and would never vote for him. Bush himself characterized his base correctly as, "the haves and the have-mores." Not a single poor person is a Bush Ranger, no poor people go to $5,000 a plate Bush fundraisers, and poor people don't hire lobbyists and make large campaign contributions in order to get legislation passed that will give their corporations billions of dollars in no-bid contracts.
When the Republicans disenfranchise thousands of Democratic voters, it is always in poor and working class neighborhoods, because it is a known fact that the poor and the working class do not tend to vote Republican.
You are the one who judges others. I don't know your basis for calling me superficial, but in so doing it is you who has made the superficial judgment, not me. And that may be because you don't have your facts straight. Bush knows what his base is. You apparently do not.
by
Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments)
on Friday, October 6, 2006 at 12:29:29 AM
while you seem to have a passion to protect the rich and powerful, do you know who you're defending them against? Could it be the poor and powerless? I'm sure they're grateful for your concern, but the rich and powerful aren't really in any danger from the poor and powerless. The rich and powerful control the government, the courts, the military, all law enforcement agencies, and have a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. They may pretend to be terrified that someday the barefoot peasants may rise up with pitchforks and storm their gated communities, but believe me, they aren't. They had security systems, sensors, and private guards installed a long time ago. And they never hesistate to kill poor or indigenous peoples whose land or resources they want so that they can increase their obscene wealth. It is kind of you not to want to discriminate against them, but unless you're in the same social set they're in, they are discriminating against you because you will never be allowed to join their country clubs. Is discrimination only allowed to work one way?
by
Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments)
on Thursday, October 5, 2006 at 9:15:08 PM
When an executive outsources 10,000 jobs, many of those workers cannot find new jobs and become homeless. The executive then gets a bonus and buys a yacht. For the price of the yacht, he could have built two homeless shelters to house all the people his decision made homeless, and still had enough left over to buy a fancy speedboat. He likes having the power to take away people's jobs, and thus deprive them of their homes. He rewards himself for his cruelty by buying himself the most luxurious yacht he can find. And he sips his champagne while the people whose jobs he outsourced line up at the soup kitchen. You may think he needs your pity, but I think he needs a conscience, some compassion, and some history lessons. The bulwark of democracy has always been the middle class. When you outsource middle class jobs and replace them with fewer jobs that pay less, you aren't just destroying lives, you are destroying the democracy that enabled you to get rich in the first place. Ingrates like that aren't worthy of your pity.
by
Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments)
on Friday, October 6, 2006 at 12:40:44 AM
"America is beautiful but she has an ugly side"-N. Young
"America is beautiful but she has an ugly side,
We're looking for a leader with The Great Spirit on his side."-Neil Young 2005
On the "Living With War" CD, Young also sings about Impeaching the President for lying and using our religion to get elected.
As a progressive Christian I am outraged that candidate Bush claimed his favorite Philosopher was Christ, but President Bush denies/neglects/refuses to follow the Philosophy.
During Tikkuns first Conference for Spritual Progressives July 2005, the ex-Roman, now Episcopal Priest, Matthew Fox stated:
"Forget original sin; remember original blessing. There are two Christianities in our midst. One worships a punitive father and seeks obedience at all costs. It is patriarchal, demonizes woman, the earth, science, gays, lesbians, and deep thought. It builds on fear and it supports empire-builders. Its theology includes a punitive father in the sky and teaches original sin.
The other Christianity recognizes the original blessing that all beings derive from. We recognize awe, not sin, not guilt, as the starting point of true religion. We recognize a divinity who is source of all things and is as much mother as father, as much female as male. We honor creation and diversity. When God created everything, He pronounced it all good. We are here to make love to life.
Yes, we are here to make love to life. Delight in creation and take your dreams into our politics and institutions. We live in the midst of a suicidal economy, motivated by love of money. We have reached a dead end. What we need to turn it around are hearts in love with life. How do we do it?
We first must move from domination to partnership, and we begin by educating our young in awe and wonder, not how to take tests. Awe leads to reverence, which leads to gratitude, which will reinvent our species. This is the task of our generation: to regain awe. The three Rs need to be balanced by the ten Cs: contemplation, creativity, chaos, compassion, courage, critical consciousness, community, celebration, ceremony, and character.
In community, people remain united, despite everything that divides them. In capitalist society, people are isolated, separated, despite everything that should hold them together. We are in the midst of an epic struggle between community and capitalistic society. We need a new narrative. It is the economy of materialism; it is the virus of affluenza that has weakened family life." -
Excerpted from KEEP HOPE ALIVE, Chapter 12
"We have it in our power to begin the world over again." - Thomas Paine
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
