Politics Has Ruined The Ability of Many to Think Rationally

Can America today afford to be the military power it was? No

By JIM PURCELL

Politics and militarism have become a haven for people of limited intellectual capability today, at the expense of the greater society.

Science has become politicized by Conservatives, just as economics have become politicized by Liberals. And, what is lost is amazing, immense. As the United States, we, as a people, should be leading the world in scientific innovation, not to mention manufacturing and industry. It is a combination of Conservative and Liberal politicians that created the catastrophe that is the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Meanwhile, the notion that the United States has either the moral authority or the inherent mission to be a global policeman must be addressed once and for all if this nation is going to progress -- or be left like some antiquated ship foundering at sea. Any nation that acts under the impression that it is a global policeman must dedicate vast sums of its spending to militarism. Yet, for a nation-state that does not have its own organic manufacturing capability to pursue military adventurism is fiscal suicide and lacks any kind of linear thinking about it.

Americans used to accomplish great things.

The greatest and most devastating change to the United States happened in 1994, when NAFTA went into effect. It changed the atmosphere of the United States, it cracked the earth beneath our feet. Most people throw around the phrase "NAFTA" and leave it unexplained. I will not.

NAFTA was an agreement signed by Canada, Mexico and the United States. It created a trade bloc in North America. NAFTA has two supplements: the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation and the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation. And, the first supplement of NAFTA hobbled American Industry and business and the second utterly decimated the American working family.

If America cannot be the manufacturing and industrial giant it was in the 1940s, 50s and 60s, then it cannot be the international military presence that it was during those eras. Economics is invariably linked to a nation's military capabilities and obligations. The idea that someone would build a military expansion program that is dependent upon foreign factories, foreign parts and foreign workers is patently insane. Despite this, it is a fact today that the United States' most ambitious military budget to date, in 2017, is based almost entirely on foreign manufacturing.

Why? Why would Americans undertake the greatest stupidity it has since embarking on its ill-fated and totally unsubsidized war in Iraq? Politics. Politics should be reduced to a four-letter word today. Many ordinary citizens have become so indoctrinated in political thought that dogma operates large portions of their lives. When the world is viewed through a lens, regardless of what that lens is, then it is colored by that lens.

After Japan's surprise attack on the U.S. Naval Base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, on December 7, 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt roused American passions to save a world being threatened by the governments of Japan, Italy and Nazi Germany. During the 1960s, President John F. Kennedy ignited the imaginations of a generation by daring Americans to conceive of a man going to the moon. Neither Roosevelt or Kennedy were asking people to become Democrats. They were not trying to sway public opinion or get them to drink some beverage laced with political poison. They were daring people to achieve things.

In one case, to save a world, and in another to move beyond it.

Politics is the death of thought. People who are not our best or brightest gravitate to politics because it is a safe haven for those who want to move as a herd. They follow people and not issues, and they believe in doing as they are told by certain leaders that are endowed by a given herd with positive qualities that are not actually there. In the cases I just pointed out, where President Roosevelt motivated Americans for one thing, and President Kennedy another, I do not bring them up because, personally, either Mr. Roosevelt or Mr. Kennedy were any gold-standard of personal conduct.

Franklin Roosevelt was a good president. He knew how to stimulate an economy and he sure as heck knew how to win a world war. But, he was imperial in his presidency, and that cannot work as an institution that can be accepted in his role within a democratic republic. In fact, a two term limit on the U.S. presidency was instigated by his political ambitions, and rightly so. Meanwhile, Mr. Kennedy had many shortcomings personally. He was a playboy, and the American presidency is not the institution that can accept that kind of behavior from him or anyone else. Still, these very fallible men were able to accomplish great things with their power.

The environment and regulation has been a Liberal cause that has spurred Big Business outsourcing factories.

Today, the United States is beyond a crossroad. We have moved past that. Americans are in a place that is dwelling in its own worst-case scenario. We have no manufacturing anymore. We have no industrial complex anymore. We have out-sourced everything as an expedient to line the pockets of Big Business and it has bankrupted the American society for the sake of the top 1 percent of earners in this country. This move is not able to be explained sensibly. So, Conservative Politics attempts to wrap stupidity in a flag and call it nationalism. Meanwhile, Liberal philosophy has become so 'green' that it has threatened, with regulation, the very manufacturing that sustained this nation for more than 200 years of its development. Yes, some concessions must be made to abate very poor health practices -- but this should be tempered with some sense. The United States is not some remote village that resides along the Amazon River in South America. Not everything can be done, nor should be done, without leaving some carbon footprint or other, let us face this.

So, Conservatives yammer on about school prayer and Liberals kvetch about automobile emissions and, the whole while, our society quietly dies from a lack of industrial and manufacturing jobs. Unwilling to accept the fact that we have devolved to neither an agrarian, a manufacturing or an industrial economy, Americans choose to ignore this and continue to tell ourselves the lie that we are still in a position to play world policeman, when we are not.

Can America continue to be the world's policeman? No.

The United States can no longer afford to subsidize foreign governments, no matter how 'beloved' as they might be, it cannot afford to keep tens of thousands of American soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines scattered throughout the world, it can no longer afford to embark on big unilateral military escapades. Yet, this year, more is being spent on the American military than ever before. And, it is not a reaffirmation of our values but a reaffirmation that we are not able to grasp the facts about who America is today and what it is actually able to do and not do.

Someone needs to send every American the memo -- we are not the economy of our forefathers and, because of that, we cannot be the nation they were. Want to change it, turn back the clock? Well, so do I. Big Business would hate having to give up its cheap foreign labor markets, though, and that is why it will never happen. So, let's live in the world as it is and not try to convince ourselves it is something it is not.

In years gone by, and I am referring to the latter part of the 20th century, our public schools offered a thorough and efficient education for children. Today, our public schools do not turn out students who are able to compete with other youngsters in the First World. I blame Conservatives for that, because where one's own religious beliefs interfere with offering scientific educations to children then we have gone too far in being permissive about this dynamic. In the home, one's religion can be absolute if one likes, but to the point where it interferes with delivering science curriculum then it has gone too far. And, it has gone too far.

Being 'political' is easier than learning things. Limited people substitute politics as religion. To a point politics informs, but without a thorough, well-rounded education about the world, politics becomes a trap where the various cows in the herd tend to 'moo' similar sounds without knowing what 'moo' means. This is the case today, right now. And, it is why we are not currently the nation we once were.

Yes, America can rise again. But, frankly, our heads are so far up our collective backsides that I cannot see how anytime soon.

Americans and Work: Not Getting It Right

Americans are stuck in the past where it involves work. 

By JIM PURCELL

Americans work longer than Europeans and that drives up the need for increased healthcare but for some reason -- God only knows why -- American conservatives seem dead set to allow people of limited means the absolute right to die in the street. Of course, Europeans are not struggling with this, and seem to get by fine with universal healthcare, more vacation time and a less demanding work week.

Why the United States is unable to adopt good ideas from somewhere else is as mysterious as why the Jets cannot put together a winning season without help from the divine.

Alright, let's throw a log on the fire and see how it goes: If you work more hours, you are not going to have the same quality of life as someone who works fewer hours. You will need more healthcare, and it would make at least some sense to take more time off. But, that is not the state of affairs in the United States.

Americans: The Jets of the work world?

According to an article in Forbes, by staff writer Steve Landsburg, the average American works 25 hours per week, while the average Britain works 21.5 hours per week, the average Frenchman works 18 hours per week and the average Italian works only 16.5 hours per week.

In 2013, a report by the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), based in Washington DC, showed the U.S. lags behind Europe badly in paid vacation time. CEPR reported that 77 percent of private sector companies in the U.S. voluntarily offered their employees some paid vacation time (to the tune of about 21 days). However, in Europe the average number of paid vacation days amounts to 34, in Austria, 31 in Italy and France, and 35 in both Germany and Spain.

Meanwhile, insofar as universal healthcare, every developed country in Western Europe has had universal healthcare in place since before the Mets won the 1969 World Series, though each nation administers it slightly differently. Some European countries have single-payer systems, such as Great Britain and Spain. Other European states, like France, have systems that are employer-based, but law compels insurance companies to adhere to strict government regulations -- unlike in America where they can do anything they want so long as they report enormous earnings every quarter for their respective boards of directors.

Why must Americans insist on doing things their own way, even if it is a total catastrophe (e.g. our public education system)? I will say this, and it is not the whole problem but at least some of it -- we have Bible bangers who come up with bizarre ideas that link Christianity (at least their version of it) to work, healthcare and insurance. And, the last time I checked, at no point did the Lord Jesus Christ bring up the merits of HMOs versus PPOs, yet still the conversation rages.

What is the rest of the problem? Well, I just do not think Americans look outside their borders much for good ideas. I believe there is a sort of nationalism about good ideas that has been ingrained in us; 'If it wasn't thought up here then it's a bad idea.' Utterly ignorant actually.

It is like there is something wrong with doing good for the greatest number of people in the United States, at least in the minds of some. And, how these people are elected is quite beyond me. Yet, they are.

America fails when it comes to not only its work hours, vacation time off, healthcare -- but also in its public education system, mass transportation and gun control. I am sure there are biblical arguments crafted by some Right Wing nut-job or other about keeping children stupid, shooting people and leaving them stranded. Now, there is a tough weekend -- someone shoots you, leaves you stranded away from mass transit and the poor person isn't educated enough to follow a map back to town. Yes, the perfect American get-away.

This is about work, though, and there doesn't seem to be any common sense on the horizon here in the Old U.S. of A. My father, God rest his soul, was a big union supporter. He and my mother were union workers for their entire careers. At some point, perhaps just to be different, I argued the point of view of business owners to him. He said if business owners had all of the power they would abuse it. He was right. He was wrong about a lot of things -- but not that.

It makes no sense how we go about work in this country. Collectively, via NAFTA, we made it a point to send all of our manufacturing and industrial jobs overseas. Then, where it involves those poor bastards of us left behind, we get the worst healthcare, working hours and vacation time in the developed world. Maybe it would sound more cheery if I compared the American status quo to China or developing countries.

Instead of building a wall along its southern border, maybe it would be more constructive to get a decent universal healthcare measure finally set (that isn't politicized beyond all get out), and do something to advocate for workers. This might be a nice flourish given the fact unions are all but dead in this country.

Other than all this, things are wonderful with the state of work in this country.

NAFTA Explained: US History Review

With so much in the news about overseas trade and its impact on the American economy, I thought it would be good to post something that explains just what all the controversy is about to the average person.

What a 'Conservative' Really was

President Theodore Roosevelt (1901-1909) was the United States' 26th chief executive and was termed a "Conservative" in his approach to government. The successor of President William McKinley was Republican and was an acknowledged leader in the "Progressive Movement."

As well as being a cowboy and war hero of the Spanish-American War (c. 1898), he was also 'conservationist' in the true spirit of the word. His Presidential Administration was hallmarked by protective tariffs and lower taxes, strong anti-trust laws that challenged monopolies of goods and services, food inspection standards and state parks. Roosevelt was determined to set aside a great number of federal parks all across the country, so that development and mining did not ruin pristine areas of the country through the long march of time.

Though a hunter, Roosevelt understood the need to preserve not only land but also certain wildlife in the U.S., and so he established laws to protect endangered species. Yet, the initiatives he aimed at insofar as his  domestic policy (be it protective tariffs, anti-trust laws, taking on monopolies, ensuring the sale of healthy food) were all truly pointed at preserving the resources of the United States.

He sought to preserve/conserve U.S. lands, indigenous species, jobs, businesses and commodities. And, he was not an international thinker. He believed that it is best for all for Americans to make or grow things in this country, sell them here, have people with adequate pay able to buy those goods and to keep those things that make this country great out of private hands so they would not be destroyed.

It is a misinterpretation of "Conservative" today that narrow-minded thinkers have done to claim relation to any of Roosevelt's ideas. He never would have gone for the North American Free Trade Agreement. The thought would have been ridiculous to Roosevelt's mind. Likewise, the notion of wanting to end employee rights in favor of conceding our entire nation to the hands of business was something he did not brook at the turn of the 20th century and I am sure he would have felt no less strong about it in the 21st century.

The idea of using American resources to bolster other nation states around the world, which leave the U.S. poorer for its philanthropy would never have made it past his desk.

Yet, so-called Conservatives' platform includes: No rights for workers, relaxed anti-trust laws, the sale of more government property for development in the private sector, the reduction of protective tariffs so the goods U.S. companies made overseas (stealing jobs) could be sold in American markets cheaply and relaxed standards from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

How on earth would a group of people so petty, self-centered and mindlessly greedy come to the conclusion they were "Conservative," given the fact that one of the nation's first real Conservatives was aptly labeled for his work in conserving American resources and markets. Meanwhile, modern Conservatives are preoccupied with destruction and legal violence to American markets, workers and standards.

No. Roosevelt would not have bought into these Conservatives. Because in his time, "Conservative" was linked to "Progressive," not 'Regressive' or 'Oppressive.' It will make no matter to modern Conservatives if they are right or wrong about what they call their standard. They are a group of people who wish to know nothing from other people, much like the old Know Nothing Party (to which they are kindred spirits). Hopefully, one day the modern Conservative meets the same end as the Know Nothingers of days past.