Capitalism Vs Socialized Care

Why are some countries so poor while others are so rich? Capitalism. Yes, on the surface it sounds so heartless and in ways it can be.

Capitalism allows those with a little imagination, a lot of ambition, hard work and a good plan could make a lot of money and be a financial success. In turn, these successful people spend money which stimulate the economy by hiring people who otherwise would not have jobs and purchase goods from others who have a business that would create yet more job and more income opportunities for the many.

The idea of Capitalism is great...if money is all you live for. Money is great. It buys the basic needs of life. It gets you fed, clothed, and keeps a roof over your head. It gets you medical treatment when you need it. It allows you to pursue experiences that only money can buy. It gives you access to higher education. It lets you travel beyond your familiar home territory so perhaps you can learn in person about what others around the world are really like. It allows a person to retire while they are still young and active enough to enjoy life and spend more time with family and friends before dying...Money is great!

However, money is not the only thing. This is where those who get blinded by the power of Capitalism forget to look at the bigger picture. The ones who get caught up in their own wealth tend to forget that not everyone has the same access to the breaks they caught. Without such breaks, they will remain barely scraping by in life and sometimes having to go without the basic needs of life.

Big business has had a field day with the corporate-friendly Administration of the Bush team. When else could the Enron-type scandals be discovered, swept under the rug for a few years then to basically give the bad guys a slap on the wrist while those who played by the rules were completely screwed by these big business tycoons? At least Martha Stewart, who was merely a minor player in comparison to the big boys, pushed forward and served her time to get it out of the way. The Enron jerks tried everything in their power to put off punishment as long as possible.

And what of the siding of court rulings favouring big business versus the pensioners? They paid into the system on the trust that money would be waiting for them at the end. They did their part. Is it their fault the business went into bankruptcy? Now the company does not have to pay their former employees their obligations and the former employees are screwed. What happens when these "little people" can no longer pay their bills? Thanks to the same judicial system it has made it harder for the little people to file bankruptcy unlike the big business counterparts. So if these people who no longer are allowed to get a pension cannot pay their bills, what happens with their lives when they cannot file bankruptcy?

Then there is the minimum wage joke. A person must be paid at the very least $5.15 per hour [or under 3 pounds for you UK readers]. Also keep in mind, many employers like to get around the full time status to avoid paying benefits so the average minimum wage worker is working 39 hours a week without benefits. That would be $200.85 per week or $803.40 per month before taking 15% out in taxes and Social Security benefits the worker will never see for a total take home pay of about $630 per month - if they keep the one job. [330 pounds per month.]

Imagine this John Doe barely graduated high school and is living in an economically challenged area. He is lucky to have this job and does not have the skills nor the opportunity nor the money to further his educational options to get ahead. He made the mistake of getting married right out of high school and had two children. John has to raise a family of four on $630 per month.

Government assisted housing allows his family to stay in a roach and rat infested tenament for $350 per month, but at least his family has a roof over their head. Government food subsidy programmes allow his family $500 in food stamps to purchase the basics at the store each month so they can get rude treatment for being poor.

Local charities, if they have the funds, might be able to pay something for their electric bill. If not then John must pay an extra $95 a month if they are careful with turning lights on and off, keep off the heat or air, and not run a television. At least they have Medicare which will let the kids go to the free clinic and wait in a long line for help when they need it. And there are local charities who may be able to give them clothes.

In order to get to and from work, John needs a car and by law it must be insured. In order to keep the car gassed up and insured and mechanically sound, it will cost more money than they have in their budget after all the other expenses.

John faces a crisis. Even with all the help from the government and charities, he can still barely get by on one minimum wage job. He does not have the funds to seek further education. If he is lucky enough to get another barely full time minimum wage job, he will lose many of the government benefits his family receives which cannot be replaced by working another full time job at minimum wage. If he works another job, at least it would be seen by society he is a go-getter who is trying to get ahead without sponging off the system. At least he can keep his pride at the expense of never seeing his family.

If his family really wants to get ahead, perhaps John could work the two minimum wage jobs and his wife could also find two minimum wage jobs. Of course they would have daycare being a new issue. It could cost them an extra $600 per month to put them in a proper daycare facility, but this is not an option because they have limited hours and need someone who can keep the kids for longer hours and for less money. If they are lucky, they may have neighbors who will do it for $400 per month if they don't mind the kids will probably be neglected in a crowd of other kids who will hardly ever see their own parents. At least the family income will be $2520 per month after taxes and they are considered above the poverty level, although technically the working poor because they still have no benefits or a chance to get out of this situation because they must continue working at this pace if they want their kids to have a better chance at life. At this income level, they no longer qualify for government assistance and no longer have rental assistance, food stamps or health care. Thus all the money they are making would go for a higher cost of living.

This is a very real example of what happens when big businesses use the minimum wage crutch. If there is any loophole to save money to the company, they have no problem with doing it at the expense of the employees. If they could get away with paying less, they would. They can treat workers like cattle because they can get away with it. Big businesses strongly discourage any form of unionization of the workers because it means they would have to address their real problems.

A happy worker who is well paid and respected makes a better and more productive worker which serves the company bottom line better. Fewer good employees treated and paid well does more for a company than a lot of workers for the least wages to make outrageouse quotas for the sole purpose of only making the company richer will always backfire.

Doing away with minimum wage will not solve the problem, but only make a new and large pool of poor. It would create an atmosphere of desperation where a worker will eventually give up and work for whatever pitance is offered knowing someone else could come along and agree to work for less. Idealists think if the minimum wage were to be eliminated people would be paid more because the competition for jobs would hike the pay, but the opposite is more likely the truth. Big companies have a track record of getting by paying less to their workers because they can. They will cut corners now. If minimum wage laws were revoked, they would pay less.

Corporate greed has contributed to the callous way they treat the enviornment and other countries as well. They will steamroll over anyone getting in the way of them turning a new dollar in the profit column -- to hell with everyone else!

Of course, not all corporate giants are bullies. Some of the better companies will provide their employees a decent living wage, allow incentives for high acheivers, give proper benefits and let the people who work for them have time for other aspects of life such as family, friends and a sense of community. Unfortunately, this is a rare breed.

The trend is going where the rich will hold on dearly to what they have and strive to have more at the expense of those trying to rise above poverty. Those who are middle class who cannot fight harder for the few dollars the rich have not horded away will find themselves amongst the ranks of the poor. The poor who just cannot get the break because they have no access to higher education, loans, or opportunities to get ahead will stay behind.

If socialized help is encouraged, it could prove a benefit for society at large. A national health care system will help those who otherwise would fall through the cracks. Preventative health care should take higher importance to avoid the costly illnesses that can be prevented such as clinics to help people overcome drug, smoking, and alcohol abuse, immunizations, weight counselling, and exercise programmes.

Free higher education to qualified students would allow many who have done well in school the chance to get a better job if they are allowed a college education they could otherwise not afford. It is a shame that those who have no interest in further education are only there because their rich parents can afford such a benefit while another smart kids from a poor home cannot attend and must work a minimum wage job to support his family instead of learning to become a doctor where he or she could really help a lot of people.

An expansion of volunteer programmes such as Habitat For Humanity could be created on a government level to assure that even the non-religious will get help in having a home.

Without much of a safety net for the poor and with the businesses set out to take away what the poor have left, many will lose hope of ever getting ahead. This could backfire on the big businesses when the essential customer base can no longer afford to do business with them. If they want further wealth they will have to compete with other wealthy people for what's left.

And this is just the plight of what Capitalism will do to the people within one of the richest countries of the world. The poor here have it good compared to the poor of the rest of the world who have no safety net whatsoever. Ironically, Capitalism is the only hope for those poor countries to allow the people the opportunities to grow their own businesses without restraint to accumulate wealth and spread the opportunities to the others in their country.

http://www.callendamornen.co.uk

The UN Needs Reform But Is Bolton The One To Do It?

Right-wing Republicans side with Cheney on their pick of John Bolton as an acceptable representative of the United States to show our best side to the United Nations. Why? It is because Mr. Bolton has always been a strong critic about the direction the United Nations is going. He believes, as do many in the US, that the United Nations has become a useless body of all talk, no action and full of corruption. On that note, he and many of Bolton's supporters are correct.

It may be hard for the rest of the world to understand the United States' point of view when it comes to this International Peace Body, but Americans love to be independent. They resent being told by anyone how to run their business. They strongly dislike the fact that outsiders want to dictate the way we think. When it comes to protecting our lands, Americans want the ability to fight a war we deem necessary without having to ask for permission to do so. The US also strongly resents that as one of the strongest, richest and most powerful countries on the panel it seems that the US is being forced to bare the brunt of all expenses, to take all the blame for all the problems of the world, and to have our hands tied in order to move forward because weaker nations simply cannot catch up.

Then look at the misuse of funds that were supposed to be used to help the sick and hungry in Iraq. Due to a few members in countries who were strongly opposed to the Iraq war taking bribe money to end sanctions early, this became one of those hidden secrets that if exposed earlier could have prevented the war altogether. We must also acknowledge allegations that some in the US were also taking similar bribes who were strong within the Republican support system.

While the UN has assisted countries in dire need and prevented some bad wars, it has proven totally ineffective at any long term aid for the countries in need. The easy fix has always seem to be blame the US because third world countries cannot catch up. In some ways, yes, the United States does have some share of blame in the problems around the world, however it has become a crutch and catch-all solution to blame instead of solve the problem. Why not look at the countries with the problems and look from the inside before pointing outside fingers?

Yes, the Bolton supporters do have a point. The United Nations needs a change. It is ineffective and a waste of time and money. The question is whether John Bolton is the man to do it.

No. The job he is after is one of diplomacy. The United Nations is delicate territory and one must use diplomatic demeanor in getting their point across. John Bolton has a long history of behaviour that is anything but diplomatic. The last thing we need is to have a loose cannon representing the United States. We do not need someone who takes a perverse pleasure in demeaning people, shouting insults, and having tantrums trying to negotiate terms on our behalf.

Surely there are more qualified people who can be effective and want to make changes within the UN who will not cause an International incident as John Bolton would have this tendency. His nomination, if passed, could prove a disaster to the reputation of the United States.

As the US has made the committment to honour the body of the United Nations, it is obliged to work within the system. It cannot just have a tantrum and storm off because not everyone in the world agrees with them. However, if the UN wants to have this institution, it needs to work for the good of all involved.

http://www.callendamornen.co.uk

F1 Tyre Rule Needs To End

I think those of us who follow Formula One would agree something needed to be done to stop the powerful hold team Ferrari had over the race. Last year's one engine rule did not defeat the mighty Mike, but it seems the one tyre rule has killed his lead.

If you are not familiar with this rule, basically the teams can only race on the same tyres throughout the course of the practice, qualifying and game itself -- unless a change in weather like sudden rain or unless the tyre is deemed by a third party to be too dangerous to drive. Any team that makes the decision to change out the tyres do so at the risk of heavy penalty.

Kimi Räikkönen has experience first hand what happens when you must second guess better judgement. His tyres were falling apart for a few laps and if left within team judgement he could have been called in to get a quick change. By the last lap it would have been too late, which is where he encountered a big problem. Had his team felt the need to call him in or change during the last fuel up, he could have made first on the podium. They did not have the luxury of this decision and Kimi had to go on through the race with tyres that were starting to deteriorate.

Poor thing, the very last lap and one wrong move completely wrecked his tyre support from underneath. They almost completely shredded tyres could have proven to be his downfall if it were not for the fact that the assembly from underneath split up. Thank goodness for tethered tyres!

In order to race, the drivers need to be assured they can have the basics fixed on an as-needed basis - tyres, engines, and frame. If any of these go out during a race, it could prove to be a fatality to the driver, other racers, or perhaps even the audience.

Perhaps if they changed the rules to allow a change without penalty as long as the pit stops made are for specific purposes - a fuel up or a repair, but not both at the same time.

http://www.callendamornen.co.uk

French Vote No To EU Constituion

Why is anyone surprised? If ever there were a group of people who held dear a sense of independence and the need to be who they are -- it is the French.

It is one thing taking on the European Union as a way to boost the economic stabilities of all countries involved, but to adopt a one-size fits all Constitution signals to the minds of many a disaster in the waiting.

The French will thumb their noses at the notion of Political Correctness. They will insist when you speak their language it is done properly. They make no bones that when you are in their country you are to not forget where you are. If they seem rude or abrupt with you, it is probably because they deem you as the one who is being rude by holding them up or taking away their valuable time being French.

Why on earth would the French accept the idea that outsiders can dictate the foundation of all laws that will govern their own people? To consider such an action would be to entertain the idea of becoming like the Americans who have a Constitution over all the states who at one time had the freedom to rule their states independently until the Federal government became too powerful leaving the individual states with a fraction of the authority they once had. By considering a Europe-wide Constitution brings in the potential threat of what happens if those in charge of the EU become too powerful and all French laws come in second to what an outside government demands.

The French are not the only ones who have an issue with it. The British are also strongly independent and the idea that an outsider could come in and disrupt their way of life is not exactly a comforting one. The United Kingdom is one of the minority in the EU that still keeps its own currency and strong sense of national identity. The fear amongst people against the EU is losing their identity and becoming a conglomerate of the European Union.

Backers of the EU Constitution point out that these are fears based on no real facts. There were safeguards put within the Constitution to prevent a hostile takeover of any individual nation. The basics of the Constitution is simply to guarantee all citizens within European Union nations the freedoms enjoyed in most of the civilized countries. Not all the nations joining the EU had such guaranteed freedoms and without a Constitution could go on denying their citizens things most others take for granted.

By allowing basic liberties for all people, it frees the weaker nations into becoming better neighbors. It allows better security throughout the EU areas. It stands as a united front in a worldwide, cutthroat economic situation. It creates the chance for more people to have better jobs, affordable homes, and the best educational opportunities around.

There are good things about the EU Constitution that will help all of Europe, even at the risk of becoming a "one-size-fits-all" community. I think everyone should really read the proposed Constitution before deciding it is the evil they think it is.

http://www.callendamornen.co.uk

Bush Will Honor Fallen Soldiers?

President George W Bush held a ceremony in order to honor the fallen soldiers of both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. What a great sentiment for him to get up in front of all those people and speak of their brave sacrifice they made for the freedom of Americans and for the freedom of the people in Iraq and Afghanistan. He can really move his audience.

Actions, however, speak louder than words. This is coming from the same Administration that has basically pressured the media into NOT covering any photos of flag-draped coffins coming home to be laid at rest. It is almost like he wants us to honor their memories, but as long as we don't know specifically who they are and how many of them have fallen. Needless to say - a lot!

Afghanistan was a necessary war to fight. The Taliban who safeguarded and sponsored the people behind the terrible act of 11th September 2001 had to be taken down. Make no mistakes about it, this was out of pure revenge and NOT to free the Afghans. The Taliban was responsible for the torture of men, women and children, but the United States government did not care one iota about their plight until the terrorists messed with us on our soil.

Did the men who died in freeing this country die in vain? Only time will tell. Are the people really free? They held elections. They are doing their best to make it through a rough time. At the same time they are still infested with terrorists and rebels who want to destroy anything that smacks of Western culture. It's not that they resent freedom as President Bush states, they hate everything that Western culture symbolizes. They hate the values and standards we hold dear or at least tolerate.

They see the West as a sex-crazed godless culture void of any merit in the eyes of their God, although some in the West see the same thing here, too. It is not freedom they hate, but the notion that their beliefs are being threatened as much as they were during the times of the Crusades. That is why they are fighting back. They want to take back the power and control away from Western influence and dole it out to whatever faction that is the most un-Western and who has the most power, guns, and intimidation factor to be in charge. This is the mentality of the ones we call "insurgents"-- the ones who can wield the most force are the ones who are the most fit to protect their people against the invading West. The few trying to take control do not think the people in their land are capable of making the right decisions and need to be controlled or else they will become like the West.

They see it as protecting their lands and their people. We see it as a group of bullies trying to enslave their own people. In turn, they see the US as the bullies trying to force a way of life upon their people. Then we see it as further proof that they have no concept in what we are trying to do to help them so we must force them to see things our way -- for their own good. After all, these people protecting their people are not exactly playing by their holy book either and they have an agenda of their own that has no religious nor moral value.

People are still dying. Soldiers expect that there will be casualties. Civilians are the innocent victims that get caught in this mess. We may be fighting for their freedom, but how many of them will be left to enjoy this freedom if this war is destroying them all?

Iraq was not a necessary war. I do not believe for one minute that George W Bush deliberately lied to instigate the war. I think he thought the information he had at the time was credible and decided something needed to be done or else it could be another disaster. I do fault him for not waiting for all the facts before acting. Even as his wrong information was coming in, other information which disproved his false information was also coming in.

By rushing into a war without support of the world community and without a good plan to execute this effort has caused more deaths than needed to happen. War will kill people, but I think President Bush owes the families of the soldiers more than a mere "honor" ceremony when some of those deaths could have been prevented.

http://www.callendamornen.co.uk

Possible Cures Within Reach

Stem cell research has been quite a controversial one. On one hand you have those who are in the Pro-Life camp who believe all life is sacred, even if that life is just a bunch of cells without a specific purpose encoded into it yet. On the other hand, you have the scientific community along with many who are suffering and waiting for a cure to a disease that could be found within these same cells. What one believes could mean the difference between life or death to one man or to forever kill a potential life of another.

A stem cell is a blank slate. When it is formed within the female, it has the possibility to become almost anything. It is not a heart, a brain, a nervous system, or any vital organ, but it has the potential to become any of these units. As it is not formed into being anything other than a blank cell, it does not have the ability to think, reason, feel, and is certainly not a viable life form although ironically it has the form to support a viable life.

The objectional part, for those on the Right To Life side is in order to obtain such cells, an embryo must be sacrificed. They are correct. These cells do not just appear out of thin air. These cells taken for experimental tests are from aborted fetus tissues and in some cases with the parental permission from a miscarried fetus. The cells do not come from the fetus of people who want to keep their babies to full term - these are the so-called "throw away" babies as the Pro-lifers term it.

Should there ever come a time when these cells can be obtained without having to use a fetus, perhaps the Pro-life camp would not object. However, the fear is that if this practice, as is, continues and is the norm then many fetuses would be created in order to sacrifice to the medical industry which could, arguably profit largely from this business. For those who fight for the life of the unborn, this serves as further proof of mankind's devaluation of humanity and life itself.

On the other hand, you have those who do not see the same objections. Not everyone views this embyronic stage as a viable human life, but only as a potential human life. Many would argue as long as even one child in the world does not have a loving home, no one should be forced to bring another one into the world if they cannot be responsible for their fate. A person in this camp may state, "If one values life so much, perhaps they should start putting a value on the life that has already been brought into our world."

Some religious people place a high value on the need for suffering. Things often change when it is they who are suffering or if it were one of their children. If the sacrifice of an otherwise trashed embyro could save a child dying from AIDS, cancer or suffering from life-long diabetes, would this not be more of a value of life than being concerned with the fate of an embryo that was heading for the hazardous waste bin?

Organ transplant programmes are always in need for donors, but that supply is often too short and many die waiting for hope. A stem cell could possibly be that organ which may save a life.

Blood supplies do lack from time to time and in some areas may be unsafe. However a blank cell could produce copious amounts of your own blood to replace your needs when necessary.

A child dying from bone cancer could have a fighting chance for life if a blank cell can replace the cancerous cells making the child whole again without as much dangerous chemo or radiation therapy.

These are all examples of lives that have already come into being that need to have a value placed upon them. The stem cells of embryos are waste products. Should the research be disallowed, these embryos will be medical waste and none of the existing people will have a shot for a better life.

Which is the lesser of two evils?

http://www.callendamornen.co.uk