INTRODUCTORY AND METAPHORICAL COMPONENTS OF THE SUBTOPIC
Time traveling: Fairly recently, a co-worker gave me a year’s worth of Time magazines that he had subscribed to. The most peculiar thing about them, other than the fact that Obama appeared on the cover about once a month, is how amusing life can be in retrospect. I imagine myself time-traveling and mocking some of the text I am reading. I could list many examples which made me ponder, a few of which would take us well off topic. I’ll restrict myself to those that don’t . . . pretty much. I am only about halfway through the stack, so I may be quoting from quite a number of them, even if it looks to the reader like the relavence to the subtopic of taxation is slight.
Taxation and parthenogenesis* (the parthenogenesis part): A number of instances from my acquired stable of issues of Time magazine stand out which are germane to the topic at hand and will provide me with a base of material for this installment. One is found within a weekly feature page called “Verbatim” which quotes newsmakers, whether political, athletic, scientific, societal, currently popular or notorious, etc. The quote from the October 27, 2008 briefing page- “It just goes to show how the ocean keeps its secrets very well.” The explanatory text beneath the quote reads: “Demian Chapman, scientist with New York’s Institute for Ocean Conservation Science, after a virgin shark gave birth—the second known instance of parthenogenesis in sharks.” The first known instance of shark’s reproducing sans sexual intercourse is untraceable, but is suspected to have deep ties to nepotism, politics or religion. We all know of the virgin birth of the son of god, who was put to death as a sacrifice for the sins of man, later, the idea of holding men accountable for their sinful earthly actions by nationalizing the idea of a toilsome afterlife occurred to god. If this was the guaranteed outcome for the evil, this would vindictively reassure me that the conscience-driven life was superior. “Shark” is the codeword for a deviously-trained, fortune-seeking, manipulative, rule-making, selfishly-desperate human being and the application of the word is not restricted to card players or jagged-fanged uber-predators, but extends to politicians. These political sharks give birth to dozens and dozens of tax schemes every legislative session and the unsuspecting populace often has no idea where they come from. Whoever first thought up, virginally, the idea of taxation, a thought pregnant with so much usurious possibility that it makes the kukkabura, a meat eating bird, that willingly transmits streptococcus, seem likeable by comparison, was the primal shark- the first which gave birth to the many sharks which have followed, many of whom live in Washington, some of whom are sons, perhaps born immaculately to fiendish rogue politicians who are too evil to have had sex with women.
Taxation and parthenogenesis (the taxation part): Some taxes are necessary and I pay them without question. It is the tax incidence, and not the instance, that I object to. Some taxes are ridiculous in their nature or simply go to fund the government’s irresponsibility. I look forward to paying the latter about as much as I anticipate conversing with a free-market capitalist whose favorite Disney character, if I had to wager a guess, would be Monstro (the whale from Pinocchio). A notable observation relative to the largest mammal on the planet is that it eats a lot. "A baby blue whale drinks over 50 gallons of its mother's milk in a day. In its first several weeks of life, it gains 10 pounds an hour or a little over 200 pounds in a day!" (See- http://school.discoveryeducation.com/schooladventures/planetocean/bluewhale.html) That monstrosity of progress rivals the trade deficit. Its appetite, like some liberal's appetite for handouts, is insatiable. The blue whale traps thousands of krill in a net of bubbles- "During its high feeding season, a blue whale consumes more than 4-6 tons of krill in one day" often trapping them in a net of bubbles meant to disorient the krill into submission. Remind you of the typical taxpayer's reaction to the net of subservience in these oligarchical United States? Thought so. A whale has a couple of obvious things in common (girth and dwelling area- in the ocean) with a shark. I don’t envy Aquaman, the social obligation of feeling like he has to talk to bastards like whales and sharks,** the latter given their ability to give birth immaculately and swallow things whole, would truly be a labor of love. And he is really the only one qualified to do so; Aquaman is like the messiah of fish. We, the taxpayer, are like little fish flitting our way through the ocean of life, hoping not to get consumed by some greedy bigger fish, sometimes one within our own company. That bigger fish may see the benefit in a different business model, one which allows the migratory practice of big fish seeking cheaper laborers overseas.*** Not even a feral cat is so unloyal. Paying more money in taxes when there is a national crisis, a Time magazine graph indicates, is something voters are willing to do “if the money goes to fund the right solution.” (See- “The Case for Bigger Government” Jeffrey D. Sachs, January 19, 2009, pgs. 34-36.) I did not see a graph in any of the magazines when I was time traveling concerning how little taxes citizens would like to pay when it is assured that billions of dollars in tax money are wasted by a government with less oversight than a bouncer-less backwoods, topless café that only employs three-breasted women on mullet night.
A recession on immigration: The third interesting time-traveling nugget comes from the June 18, 2007 issue of Time which dismissed the suspected harmful effects of amnesty. There are several bold headings which introduce justifications why amnesty would not be harmful to the United States. The fifth heading addresses the 1986 amnesty and mentions that “Studies show that the valleys and peaks in migration have depended far less on changes in policy or policing and far more on the basic economic conditions in the U.S. and Mexico. If you want to truly tamp down illegal immigration, you could induce a recession in the U.S. A better idea might be to help Mexico create more jobs that pay better. A recent Council on Foreign Relations study found that when Mexican wages drop 10% relative to U.S. wages, attempts to cross the border illegally rise 6%.”**** The fact that our country would go to such great lengths to stem the tide of illegal immigration is encouraging, (I’m referring to the U.S. having induced a recession, the only thing more insidious is the induction of a shark conceived immaculately), better than a wall or fence, more border patrol agents, stiffer penalties, helicopters, etc., and what a truly masterful plan that is. Instead of a state-of-the-art-fence that would have cost an estimated $4-8 billion dollars,***** the federal government decided to allow banks and other financial institutions to go almost completely unregulated in their business practices and put the taxpayer, (whether current or unborn) at an extreme disadvantage- as they have decided rather to bail out the financial industry to the tune of $750 billion or more . . . That hell isn’t over yet.
Taxation and wages I: What is with the shark metaphor, writing about wages****** as if they were completely partnered with taxes, immigration (see parts 22-27) and the recession (which I’ve written about in half of my posts since immigration) all in one big mess of text? I might ask that myself, and I am the author of this blog saga. I am merely suggesting how interconnected everything is. We are the taxpayers, subject to the whims of political sharks and the volatile nature of 21st century financial markets, held hostage by the representatives we elect and hemorrhaging our jobs to foreign workers whether they come legitimately, via a work-visa, or are not detained at our border. We are, in fact, taxed on our earnings (our wages), so it seems to me a logical step to address taxes along with wages, much more logical than a number of corporations, some reporting 32.1% operating profit margins, that still compulsively want, apparently, to earn all of the money in the world. Their appetite for money reminds me of a whale's appetite for krill. Also, how directly taxes are tied to wages should come as no surprise to those who have brought home a paycheck or who were the least interested in the economic recovery/stimulus bill’s operational effects on the average taxpayer- “Millions of Americans enjoying their small windfall from President Barack Obama's "Making Work Pay" tax credit are in for an unpleasant surprise next spring [2010]. The government is going to want some of that money back. The tax credit is supposed to provide up to $400 to individuals and $800 to married couples as part of the massive economic recovery package enacted in February [2009] . . . new tax withholding tables issued by the IRS could cause millions of taxpayers to get hundreds of dollars more than they are entitled to under the credit, money that will have to be repaid at tax time.” (See- http://finance.yahoo.com/news/INSIDE-WASHINGTON-Rude-apf-15091434.html?.v=1, “INSIDE WASHINGTON: Taxpayers to Get Rude Surprise” Stephen Olemacher, Associated Press Writer, April 30, 2009.) If you can’t see how American wages are determined by the taxes imposed by the government, the government’s inability to protect its workers from loan sharks, and the political sharks we elect to keep our jobs safe from invaders, perhaps some time traveling is in order. Instead of looking at the past, you are going to want to see what it will do to us.
Taxes and wages II: It should be said that immigration directly reduces our taxes, which we should be thankful for, excepting that it reduces our wages by doing so; taxes are proportional with earnings; non-salaried employees don’t have to remember this if they can still read their paycheck. If we earn less, the government removes less in payroll taxes. Middle class payroll taxes are surely held in check by the earning of less money, which without question can be tied both to immigration and to the outsourcing of jobs overseas. Anyone who cannot see this probably thinks a singing competition between chickens that must remove butter from their talons with cold water while doing so is a good idea.
Wages- we don’t need no stinkin’ wages (apparently): A 2007 Pew Research study concerning the perception of economic haves and have-nots as compared with a 1988 study reported these reasons as important determining factors for people classifying themselves as haves or have nots: race, political orientation, sex, age, education level and region of residence in the United States. What do I feel is the most important determining factor- what should cause you to classify yourself as a have or have-not? The reality of either actually having or not having. A young piglet could not consider itself a leopard simply because it has spots. It is its destiny to be consumed or spend its life in some South Dakotan petting zoo, for having-not. The study reveals that- “The increased prevalence of both views -- that the country is increasingly divided along economic lines and that a given individual is on the wrong side of that divide -- finds support in national economic data. As numerous studies have demonstrated in recent years, income gains over the last few decades have been heavily concentrated at the very top of the income distribution. For example, in an update of their earlier study of long-term U.S. income trends, economists Piketty and Saez compute that the share of income going to families in the top 1% of the income scale has doubled from 8% in 1980 to 16% in 2004 even excluding capital gains. (For a review of other recent studies see an earlier Pew commentary, ‘Pinched Pocketbooks: Do Average Americans Spot Something That Most Economists Miss?’)”
‘Meanwhile, Congressional Budget Office data show that despite the increase in the number of families with two or more earners and widespread income gains in the latter half of the 1990s, families in the middle fifth of the income distribution realized only a modest $6,600 increase in annual income between 1988 and 2004, while the top 1% of families saw their incomes rise from $839,100 to an average [of] $1,259,700. Recently released Census Bureau data show that in 2006, median household income adjusted for inflation was still 2.1% below its 1999 level.******* More sensationally, Bloomberg.com recently reported on a study showing that ‘top private-equity and hedge fund managers made more in 10 minutes than average-paid U.S. workers earned all of last year.’ ” (See- http://pewresearch.org/pubs/593/haves-have-nots “A Nation of Haves and Have-Nots? Far More Americans See Their Nation as Divided Along Economic Lines” Jodie Allen, September 13, 2007.) And as certain employees work for corporations with operating profit margins of “a whopping 32.1 percent”******** and can still receive only a 1.5% raise, fear that their job is to be moved overseas within the next year, and be told that the business unit they are inspired to work for is making a “boatload” of money (according to the business unit’s director). I haven’t decided whether the way managers talk to the employees about a corporation’s financial well-being should be the complete snow job mentality or the keepin’ it real approach; what I do know is that the employees won’t care as long as they are better compensated for their tolerance of your lies or your down-home jocularity. Ask a rabbit if it prefers blood meal on its hosta-leaf salad, or prefers to be threatened with removal from its occupation while not being paid in insects. Very little difference. You may have a hunch that there is a third approach- the truth, and a fourth, getting laws passed which inhibit a corporation's chances of selling American workers down the river. Such a law, say the conservatives, is unconstitutional. I wonder how many republicans would say so if their prospects were tied to one employer, and it was their job on the line. I look forward to a discussion with a republican who semi-consciously suffers from a collective prolapsed conservatism without their knowledge about as much as another computer reconfiguration which butchers all of my internet settings, removes non-corporate supported work-functional applications and destroys all of the productively assimilated functionality I've worked 3 years to install. Note- I recently had my computer reconfigured- there isn't a word in the English language I could use to express my frustration with either the prolapsees or the reconfiguration.
Mr. Independent: Lou Dobbs, in “Independents Day” writes, “I believe that a number of factors explain the stagnation of working wages and a rising sense of anxiety and frustration in our middle class. Corporate America is undeterred in its determination to outsource middle-class jobs and to import cheap foreign labor, while our government is representing neither the interest of our people nor that of our nation. The divide between the wealthy and privileged and the middle class and those who aspire to it is widening. A 2007 Pew[*********] Research study found not only that the American family’s income has failed to keep up with productivity growth since 2000, but that working men in their thirties today earn less than men in their thirties did in 1974. As recently as a decade ago, young working men were earning more than their fathers.” (pg. 170) Dobbs also writes, “In 1980 a meat-packing job paid nineteen dollars an hour, but today that same job pays closer to nine dollars an hour, according to the Labor Department. That’s entirely consistent with what we’ve reported on the show: Illegal aliens depress wages for U.S. workers by as much as $200 billion a year, in addition to placing a tremendous burden on hospitals, schools, and other social services.” (pg. 156 of “Independents Day”)
Transposed subject matter: Surely these next two quotations apply more to immigration than taxes, but then why would I include them here? Dobbs quotes California congressman Ed Royce- “It [allowing immigrants with few skills into the country] is going to push down wages, it’s going to import an awful lot of poverty into this country, and these individuals on average pay one dollar in taxes for every three dollars in public benefits they receive. Figure out what it means for Social Security in the future as a consequence of this act.” (pg. 156 of “Independents Day”) And when a fair-minded citizen, the mayor of an east coast town, objects to the path this country is taking, a hard line is drawn by judges who are legislating from the bench by using the tired- “it is unconstitutional” refrain to allow just about anything more sensible people would find revolting- “No case attracted more national attention than that of Hazleton, Pennsylvania. In the summer of 2007 a federal court ruled that Hazleton’s Illegal Immigration Relief Act, which aimed to hold landlords and employers responsible if they did business with illegal aliens, is unconstitutional. More than 120 communities across the country have passed similar legislation and local laws.” (ID pg. 160, 161) The judge’s words justifying his ruling indicate that he may have contracted the dumb-ass flu. However, I won’t even include them here; I’ve decided that I can’t quote everything Dobbs writes. As I write this, I am wearing a swine flu mask so that I don’t catch the dumb ass flu. Despite the fact that the case is almost two years old- yeah you never know what can happen when you’re still time traveling, contact with a shortsighted liberal who may still be a carrier for any of a variety of animal-appellated illnesses. If a scientist doing stem cell research had found the genetic code for scientifically reproducing Care Bears in a petrie dish, liberals would demand that it was unconstitutional to destroy those cells. They would want the Care Bears to have voting rights, encourage the introduced species to use names like Unconstituional Bear and Dumb-Ass Bear and guarantee them citizenship if they wait out the whole dubiously predictable amnesty bill that will get passed during the Obama administration. I’ll have more on the constitution below time; shocking isn’t it? I have to get back to my time-traveling theme.
Big government: From a January 19, 2009, Time article “The Case for Bigger Government by Jeffrey D. Sachs, come these sentences- “We’ve kept our taxes as a share of national income lower than Europe’s by focusing on the private sector [allowing the unregulated free market exchange of money to dominate the economy]. After citing the Obama administration’s inherited litany of problems- “the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression: the financial sector is in ruins; the budget is hemorrhaging red ink; debt-ridden households have clamped down on spending . . . unemployment is soaring; the country is in two wars; and the unmet social and environmental needs are vast . . .” the next sentence is the panacea for the 44th president- “These conditions demand a fundamental realignment in strategy that ultimately comes back to taxation: Will we pay for the government we need?” (pg. 35) Aren’t we already paying for the government we need? They take taxes from my earnings each paycheck that go to social security (6.2%) and medicare (1.45%) and my employer keeps my wages low because they are on the hook for unemployment taxes, which, by the way are significantly lower than actually paying an employee. I know, that seemed obvious, but I just thought I would make sure you catch my meaning. Oh, and I forgot, they remove money for Fed Withholding and MN Withholding, which money is accumulated for just about anything else, budget shortfalls, money for tanks, protecting us against the swine flu. Through December 20, 2008 the total amount removed from those two areas, from my pay checks was almost $3,300. All together from the four taxed areas I list above, I had over $7,000 removed in 2008.
Big Constitution: I ask myself, when I am not considering how ridiculous a cheetah would look trying to moon walk while being attacked by a swarm of gnats with the dumbass flu and in between bouts of my too self-conscious preoccupation with being introspective, isn’t that enough? Isn’t it too much, for a citizen who has absolutely no control over how his earnings are disseminated? If anyone brings up the notion that I have a say based on who I vote for, I am going to tell them that is an unconstitutional comment. This will instantly put them on the defensive because they will have to read through the Constitution for the rest of their lives searching for the words that would even cryptically hint that this is true; I think this the most used war-of-words tactic in the adult world and rivals the pint-sized version- "I know my dad could beat up your dad." If state and federal judges do it, what is to stop oveeager conservatives and liberals from using it? Distinguishing between republicans who want to tax me and say that banning smoking in public is unconstitutional and democrats who want to tax me and say that outlawing abortions is unconstitutional is a guy like me saying that the Constitution is unconstitutional! (There is much more angst-ridden text contained within the Time article I quote from above; Sachs even equates how much taxes contribute to the GDP, a point not lost on me, and one which I have already brought up as a way the government will have to justify increasing taxes if consumer spending continues to plummet- [see part 45] and if big government "rescues" us by providing the overtaxed with universal health care.)
The plan: I wonder- what is the government’s plan? The government allows illegals into the country which takes low paying jobs from Americans (pre-recession of course), and the government allows the outsourcing of jobs overseas, which takes from Americans an increasing share of middle class jobs; without a job, a worker cannot be taxed, as they earn no money, without money, it is awfully hard to purchase things. That statement excepts property taxes, which a citizen won’t have because he won’t be able to afford a house, because of the no job thing, and excepting sales tax, such as on food, an extra-necessary cost, which he won’t be able to afford because he won’t have a job, there will be significantly fewer taxes to be had as a component of the GDP. So, the only people not overly afflicted with a financial shortcoming are the rich, who are the ones who can afford to finance the campaigns of the politicians empowered with making the decisions that are costing everyone who is not rich so much money, family, identity and is protecting those with money from the reasonable demands of everyone else. Is there some science fiction movie somewhere that has already played out this scenario?
Sachs concludes: “. . . though almost no U.S. politician will say it now, the U.S. will probably have to follow Europe down the path of the value-added tax—a kind of national sales tax. In the past 50 years, arguing for tax increases to fund the expansion of federal programs has been a political death wish.” (pg. 36) Well, not really. Imagine this whole economic situation from an Independent’s perspective. Consider a video game such as Space Invaders. Imagine the plot of Space Invaders was that these underdeveloped aliens were coming for you. These were nameless, faceless bugs descending upon you en masse asking for more money in taxes, or not even more money, but rather asking for the same amount of money despite the fact that your wages never noticeably increased, and they have no intention of apologizing to you for how delinquently they spent the money you gave them last year. The only thing that distinguishes one of the space invaders from every other is that it used to occupy a certain space a certain distance from your laser cannon. You might remove ten to one hundred aliens with a laser cannon, the only defense you have, besides the ability to move laterally, but eventually, unless you are a superior player, (which you only become by feeding the machine with a dollars in quarters), you are overcome by sheer numbers. How is this result distinguishable from the plethora of like-minded politicians who claim to be democrats or republicans and claim the money that you have earned. If one politician/alien is eliminated as a potential candidate to feaux-represent you, others simply take their place, their advance upon you quickens and though the governor of your state might veto a tax bill (see below) the majority of them passed through their chamber of government, they’ll charge an internet access tax or a tax on items purchased on the internet, or a tax for successfully potty training your daughter in a weekend, to offset the diaper lobby’s loss of your patronage. I see virtually no characteristics which would separate an alien in Space Invaders from the average politician. They come for your money and your job, and are backed by those who seldom ever have to fear for the loss of either. (Note, I’ve read a Minnesota tax increase proposal that would increase the tax on items bought on the internet and also read an article about an internet access tax that has been considered in the past, but seems as if it cannot be enacted, for states that have not been grandfathered in, until 2014. See- http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9807418-7.html.) I am already charged $60 a month for internet access- that’ll do.
Europe and broken America: The author of the above referenced article (Sachs) writes, “As our budget choices were getting tougher in the 1970s, Europe faced similar dilemmas and took a different course. While Americans rejected new taxes and domestic programs, Europeans elected governments that introduced higher taxation, mainly value-added taxes, to cover the rising costs of health care, education, infrastructure, poverty relief and international-development aid.” (pg. 36) First, and this is one of the most important points I have made in this whole blog saga, trim the government waste, hire me and I will show you where it is. Then, and only then, ask the citizens who still have jobs to pay more in taxes. When you cut through all of the political red tape, the favors owed to campaign contributors, the pork in your state and federal legislation, the unregulated free market, the ridiculously ambiguous language in the Constitution, the migration of jobs overseas and the assumption of them within our borders, the overpaying of teachers who are not high performers, the rewarding of CEOs with huge bonuses for tanking companies, the abuse of the welfare system, the awarding of a military contract after collecting only one bid, and the wasting of money on bureaucratic health care, then ask for more money.
Retirement, taxes and government spending: I’m still asking about the government’s plan, and I’m not the only one, see the next paragraph below. In yet another timely-read, for the purposes of this subtopic, Time magazine article- “The Big Bank Bailout: Are You Next?” by Bill Saporito, October 27, 2008, come these words- “If we are forced to increase savings, [to fund retirement and stem the tide of the recession] then spending has to drop, and that has ramifications for the stock market and the economy, because it implies we’ll buy fewer computers and take fewer trips.********** With consumers hard-pressed, it is the government that will have to do the spending. Both presidential candidates have proposed economic stimulus packages on top of the $168 billion stimulus Congress passed in early February [2009]. At some point, of course, the next President will have to either rein in that spending or raise taxes—or risk a historic budget deficit.” This is a role the government must be giddy with anticipation about. The article is primarily about the juxtaposition of people hoping to survive this recession without spending money they hope to save for retirement. These people lost money because of the financial market’s response to the extreme dumb-ass flu that has swept through the government for decades, but more particularly in the last decade where the government has seemed to have been inoculated against it, while being carriers to those who are less immune, like the taxpayer. It helps to be inoculated against it when you can ask the afflicted, (the taxpayer for almost $800 billion to remedy an illness of your own causing. Pro taxation people would probably ridicule people who had an irrational fear of crocodiles; but a fear of crocodiles is rational . . . if you are alive. As above, when I promised to get back to the unconstitutional comments, I will have more to say in this area (government waste).
Tax in Time: In yet another Time magazine article (from November 10, 2008, pg. 59) I read, in Justin Fox’s The Curious Capitalist, some speculation about where the government is most likely going to go to get a hand-out. Fox asks, “So who will pay those taxes?” He mentions that the highest earners- “almost all income gains in recent years have gone to the top 1%. But because the rich can afford good tax lawyers, there are diminishing returns to increasing their tax rates.” Also, “The share of pretax income going to the bottom 40% of households dropped from 20 % in 1980 to 15.9% in 2005, according to the Congressional Budget Office, and that decline has been counteracted only modestly by tax credits. [to the poor]” So, if taxing the rich is out because the government apparently cannot hire lawyers brighter than those the rich can hire, and taxing the poor is out because they don’t have any share of money to begin with, who is left? How about we just tax those in the middle class again? They keep voting for one of two space invaders anyway. That is precisely what Fox concludes, though his spin is that the government would tax those that make between $70-$250k, the broadly defined upper middle class- broadly defined to be sure. Quite an income grouping. Those who make $70k have virtually nothing in common with those that make $250k, I assure you. Also, as I’ve written before, (part 41 to be exact)*********** I recognize the danger of increasing the taxes of those who make between $200k-$300k AND own a small business and those who make that, or more, and don’t, because of the ramifications it can have on the small business employee, the employers chances of growing the business which is the essence of capitalism I would never want to constrain.
DETENTION OF THE DANGEROUS
Detention I: I only served one of these in high school- go figure. The heading of this paragraph concerns how certain zoo animals are detained. Consider, on your next trip to the zoo, the animals that are more sectioned off than the others. This provides a safe viewing environment for innocent children, dutiful parents and self-absorbed teens on their second date. This protection ensures we are safe from dangerous animals, and keeps the animals, some of them anyway, safe from us. The shark is encased in at least 6 inches of fortified glass, the bear is bastioned behind the same transparent wall of glass; the tiger is kept in a forested hold within walls, specialists familiar with the abilities of big cats have verified it cannot scale, the lynx prawls in a bored manner and monkeys swing or hang innocently behind fenced enclosures. All of these bulwarks are in place as safeguards for our enjoyment, for these animals, and thousands like them, would be a danger to us if allowed to roam free, kind of like your average pedophiliac. Oh, wait, we do let those guys out don’t we . . . bad analogy. Maybe we should release pedophiliacs into the enclosure of an eel or a snake or a gorilla and see what happens. But I digress.
Detention II: Likewise, other, more innocent, animals are kept behind fences. My family went to the zoo the other day, and along with seeing that the dolphin was kept within a pool of water, the goat behind a fence and the ostrich in a large open space, able to be seen, but far beyond any human’s reach, I noted how we have these protections in place to guarantee our safety, and if not guarantee, for there is always the chance that the power of nature will supercede the logic of man, or that a curious child will enter the domain of the meerkat and have its ankle bitten, then at least the fortifications are well considered. We have these animal garrisons in place for reasons like safety, or money (it would cost a lot to replace a panda), or money- (it would cost a lot to defend a lawsuit brought about because an elephant left to its own devices stepped on someone’s toe. This detention makes sense; it is reasonable. Even the two beta fish we brought home a few weeks ago, are separated in the aquarium because they are two males, the more beautiful of the beta fish species, and are highly likely to rip each other to shreds through some kind of genetic fish jealousy mandate- “my fins are bigger and more colorful than yours” type of thing. The packaging warns the beta fish shopper about this wild proclivity, arms them with knowledge they might not otherwise have had, kind of like when the government releases a pedophile, excepting this analogy also is not suitable for the government does so without the warning.
Detention III: Money-wise, the two fish, who were reported by the sales girl to be more exciting if purchased in tandem, cost me twice as much as one fish would have. I was set to by one, but the feature of how much of a flourish each male would swim with if paired with another was apparently a selling point with my wife. I relented and bought the two; good thing I got me that 1.5% raise and that Obamessiah tax credit. I didn’t buy two sharks, there are enough of those running the corporations we work for. But all of this animal kingdom stuff, the detention of unsafe sentient beings without the ability to blush in embarrassment because of what they’ve done, or what they’re capable of (i.e. animals), even the sexual predator animals kind of stuff got me thinking about the average taxpayer’s own life, his habitat, his relationship to his community, his predator-prey relationship with his representatives on all levels of government. (Note- the predator = the politician, remember the shark stuff above; do you think I just write everything accidenctally?) We have so many protections in place for animals and for us: zoo fortresses, leashes, warnings not to feed the ducks, deer crossing signs, beware of dog signs, Peta press releases, millions of books which would educate us on how to keep a whoot owl as a pet, but not a lot in the way of keeping us protected against political predators. I’ll get back to that theme eventually- next time- I have a lot of plates to spin.
Pig odor and swine flu: Certainly, my metaphors above are offal,************ I mean awful, and I cannot believe that less than two months after my chastisement of the omnibus bill’s pig odor study, that a hysterical (perhaps legitimately hysterical) fear of a potential pandemic called the swine flu gripped the imagination and the American psyche. If someone coughs a few times within a few minutes in a cube within earshot of mine I think of commenting on their having the swine flu and feel almost guilty of how negatively I portrayed the money that was allotted for an Iowa pig odor study- surely the two things are connected. According to a National Geographic article, “Egypt Killing All Swine” from April 30, 2009- “Even though no cases of swine flu have been found in Egypt—in pigs or Humans—the government has ordered an estimated 300,000-plus pigs slaughtered as a swine flu precaution . . . Unlike bird flu, where the flu strain that spread to humans was widespread in bird populations, the World Health Organization says there is no similar concern about pigs - and no evidence that people have contracted swine flu by eating pork or handling pigs.” So, I apologize for my work in mocking the pig odor study which would have saved the vast number of schools from being closed, from lame jokes at the office the instant someone sneezes, the common use of the phrase- “cover your cough,” the altered focus from a pig’s glycemic index, which is often indicative of their rotundity, and to the entire pork industry that is suffering a heavy financial loss. Too bad, we, as the voting public, can’t slaughter a few hundred thousand legislative maneuvers (pork barrel spending) that would save the taxpayer billions of dollars for lord knows what. Unfortunately, I don’t think that number of slaughtered proposals is going to be enough.
Note: I wrote about the swine flu when it was in full outbreak mode, before it had killed nearly five people. I have a lot of spinning plates- government waste as it equates to taxation, predatory politicians and their captivity, the free-market (still), the whole subtopic of taxation proper, and the unconstitutionality of just about everything from breathing through your mouth, fearing the wrath of diabetes for using drink boxes to potty train your daughter and five minute conversations about double-reed musical instruments.
______________________________________
* Parthenogenesis- a form of reproduction where a female gives birth without the fertilization provided by a male to the embryo.
** There is an approach to the tasking of work in many corporations called Agile, which requires the collaboration of employees in order to get the job done. Work/stories are written out on index cards, along with various development and testing cards associated with that story and all of the associated cards are kept in swim lanes. There are several sharks in this walk of life as well, some are project managers, or their bosses five levels up the food chain which continue to shift jobs overseas, defending such a maneuver by saying the words “free-market.”
*** In this clumsy, and thinly-veiled metaphor, the word ‘underseas’ should probably be used
**** My wage went up 1.5% this year- any chance that information alone would keep just ten illegals from coming to the United States? Some of that information, from June of 2007 is quite humorous. For the complete article see “The Case for Amnesty” by Nathan Thornburgh, June 18, 2007 (pgs. 38-42).
***** See- http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/systems/mexico-wall.htm for more on all kinds of border fencing costs, the number of apprehended immigrants, and the number that were not apprehended, and proposed and passed bills.
****** In Lou Dobbs’ most recent book- “Independents Day” he devotes another chapter to the overall effects of immigration. In the chapter titled “Crossing the Line” he has an immigration facts insert which addresses the topic of falling U.S. wages for American workers. He writes- “Construction workers made the same hourly rate as they did in 1965 (measured in 1982 dollars) . . . Wages have fallen by nearly 4% for landscaping workers . . . Landscapers are making the same hourly rate as they did in 1972.” The same thing is happening in more fields than just landscaping and construction.
******* This was essentially my jumping off point from which I’ve been able to show how many issues are turned against the viability of members of the present, and even more profoundly, the future economic middle class.
********(See- http://www.citypages.com/2009-04-29/news/westlaw-rises-to-legal-publishing-fame-by-selling-free-information/.)
********* And I thought the pig odor study being conducted by PEW Research was both fitting and funny. The connection between the reality of the employee wage situation in this country and the name of the research group doing the study produces something that is sad and stinks- (see part 45).
********** Which I most notably mentioned in part 5 (Paying to Live for Free), part 8 (The Price of Necessary Costs) and part 9 (Government Waste).
*********** I never thought I would have the occasion to reference that column. See paragraph 2) Fexofenadyne hydrochloride (Allegra).
************ Offal: waste parts of a butchered animal, most often their entrails and internal organs.
No comments:
Post a Comment