Working People Need To See The Forest AND The Trees

For those who are terribly worried about the plight of millionaires and billionaires, let me reassure you: they'll be fine! I had a troubling conversation with an acquaintance the other day. He's working class and in his 50s and of Chinese background (born in the U.S.). He proceeded to tell me how "the government" (his term) has forced so many corporations to move facilities and jobs to China and other countries. When I asked him just what he meant, he mentioned regulations about clean air, clean water, employment and also business taxes. He cited his source as Fox News. Okay, so here we have a guy who makes, at most I'm sure, $1,500 a month, and likely closer to $1,200 a month, who has had car trouble a couple of times just since the first of the year (a 2000 model car), yet he's spouting the propaganda nonsense of the wealthiest Americans, all provided to him by Fox News. Let me tell you something, the richest Americans did NOT move facilities and jobs out of the country because they were fearful they couldn't pay the electric bill for their chauffeur's bedroom or because they weren't making big money. They did it to make MORE money. Now you can say, "That's fine," but then let's dispense with all the anti-government rigamarole and tell us what you really mean. Let's hear what it really means: like, "I don't give a good damn if you choke to death in air pollution, or die from poisoned water, or get lead poisoning, or you can't get a job (or hold a job) because you're a minority, or a woman, or gay, or are 55 or 60 years old. I want MORE money!" (But you have lots of money.) "This is a free country and I can make however much I want, and I'm going to make it in China, because I can make there without worrying about clean air, clean water, your damnable employment because of your age, gender or ethnic background." (That's not very patriotic.) "Patriotic? I'm a true, red blooded American, and I'm religious too." (What if there are government upheavals in some of the countries where you now have facilities?) "Well the U.S. government better just get their behinds into action to protect my interests." (So if that means sending troops into harms way, "boots on the ground," as some Republicans like to always say, that would be okay?) "You're damned right! (So the Americans you put out of work because of those "damnable employment regulations" should send their sons and daughters to defend you?) "You got it."

Why non wealthy Americans would rise to defend the interests of the super wealthy is beyond me. The system is meant to be contentious, and if you aren't contentious, about the only thing they'll give you is the middle finger, just as so many have been doing by moving jobs overseas. For those who continue to say, "I want to keep making my $8.00 an hour, duh," don't expect any gratitude in return from the super wealthy. No, you can't even see your own self interest, but they ALWAYS see their own self interest. Remember, they didn't go through all of the outsourcing of jobs and support union busting politicians so they could pay you more, they want to pay you less! That's what all of this is about. One thing is for sure, they ARE greedier than you, and they are willing to destroy you to try to satisfy their greed. All at a time when the wealthiest segment of America is making more money and taking a greater percentage of the national income than perhaps since the latter part of the 1800s!      

And get this, the super money making is not limited to just some industries or businesses, as even Goodwill Industries, a "non profit" business that exists to help train and employ people with employment disadvantages, including disabilities, pays some workers less than the minimum wage, including some who make about a quarter an hour! (Just to be clear, this is legal under specific circumstances.) At the same time, executives for many of Goodwill's branches make hundreds of thousands of dollars, with some making anywhere from a half million to more than one million dollars a year. I guess the "non profit" designation must refer to the workers. I don't mean to just cite Goodwill, but this just goes to show how this "money to the richest" philosophy has permeated the entire American business world, where the wealthiest feel ENTITLED to make not just more than 99% of other Americans, but gazillions more! This is a philosophy that will continue the decline of the country. All the while Americans are bombarded with advertisements telling us "to buy this new phone with all sorts of gadgets, most which you won't be able to figure out how to use by the time we release the next super gadget phone," or "get the latest cable or satellite TV package with 55,000,000 channels, 54,999,988 you'll never watch, but if you don't get this package you're a loser," or "get your tickets to the next game and sit right up close to see that 5 million dollar a year shortstop for just $300 for four tickets, and don't forget to bring plenty of money with you, because we've got some deals for you, like 4 cups of beer for $30.00 and 4 hotdogs for just $16.00, what a deal, that less than fifty dollars."

Then there's the political side of things. Here in Ohio Republican John Kasich defeated Democratic incumbent governor Ted Strickland in 2010 in part by running a television ad telling Ohioans that his father had been a mailman and how he therefore related to working people. No sooner had he taken office than he and other Republicans in the state legislature began an assault to gut unions, an assault that ended with an embarrassing trouncing for Republicans in a referendum on the issue. Don't be fooled; forget the "my father was a mailman" story, this was about camouflaging the shift of more money to the wealthy by destroying unions, along with wage, benefit, job protection and safety provisions unions help to set for all workers, including non union workers. If we allow unions to be destroyed, no whining about our treatment at the hands of ruthless greed. We deserve it! I make NO apologies to the wealthiest of the wealthy, or to John Kasich, I proudly stand for unions! The object of conservative policy seems always to be, "we've got to cut middle class and poor Americans so that we can give tax cuts to the wealthy." At least that argument  would sound half way sane, if the wealthy were in decline, but they are doing better than anytime in more than a century; it is the middle class and the poor who are under siege With so much excess money in their hands, the wealthy can influence all sorts of financial markets to their advantage very easily and also tamper with the political system. The Supreme Court decision (Citizens United) that essentially said that corporations are people and that corporations (who owns corporations? The wealthiest Americans) can contribute unlimited sums of money to political causes and permits special political groups to act as attack dogs (used by both major parties) by using money from anonymous donors is perhaps the biggest blow to American democracy yet. America was once the progressive source of democracy for the world, now we've become regressive, with increasing power to the wealthy, the worst income inequality among developed nations, less social mobility (generally the ability to move upward in income level), the most expensive health care system, without necessarily a comparable benefit for the costs as compared to other developed nations,* a high rate of infant mortality, etc. Workers of America who support the conservative agenda and thus the wealthiest of the wealthy, I just want you to know, that expanse of trees is called a forest.

* For some very good information on the health care cost/benefit comparisons, see this PBS article:  http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/10/health-costs-how-the-us-compares-with-other-countries.html

WORD HISTORY:
Curt-Like its relative "short," this word goes back to Indo European "sker," which meant "to cut," but without the beginning "s" sound. This gave its Latin offspring "curtus," which meant "short/shortened." Forms of the word spread through the Germanic languages, "seemingly" around 800-900 A.D., but English, unlike its close relatives, did not borrow the word at that time, retaining Germanic "short" to this day; the only Germanic language to retain the word as its main adjective word for "short." Exactly when English borrowed the word is somewhat unclear, but I "lean" toward 1350-1400, and it simply meant "brief," from which later developed the meaning "abrupt, blunt," its main meaning in modern times. German has "kurz" (meaning "short") which replaced "schurz," which had been the German form closely related to English "short." Low German Saxon, Danish, Norwegian, Dutch and Swedish all have "kort;" and West Frisian has "koart." As best I can tell, Icelandic does not use a form of "curt." As I noted above, "curt" and "short" are related, but "short" came from the Germanic branch of Indo European (English is a Germanic language), and "curt" came from the Italic/Latin branch of Indo European and was borrowed by many Germanic languages, including English.