Servant Economy

One of my favorite quotes, from Voltaire, is that " the comfort of the rich requires an abundant supply of the poor".  I'm afraid this is the future of American workers in this country.  Maybe a few people will remember President H W Bush making the statement that America is evolving into a service economy.  Approximately 20 years later I think I can safely say that instead of evolving in to a service economy, we are devolving into a servant economy.

Remember when we thought advances in technology would make life easier for everyone.  How robots would perform arduous and repetitious tasks so efficiently that goods would become abundant and cheap for us all.  How we would work less hours, and yet have a better life style.  So, what happened?  The technology is here, America produces more manufactured goods than ever before in our history, yet American manufacturing jobs have decreased from around 36% of all jobs in America to only about 16% today.  At the same time, the American middle class has been on a steady decline since at least the early eighties, except for a brief expansion during President Clinton's tenure.  ( I'm not praising Clinton here, he was just the beneficiary of happy circumstance)

Here's what I think happened, and here's where I think we are going.  Simply put, the wealthy kept the profits made from our increased productivity, and passed none of it along to the rest of us.  On the contrary, because we've seen a surplus of American labor caused by increased productivity, and an influx of cheap foreign labor and goods,  corporate  America has viewed the American worker as just one more commodity to be purchased at the lowest possible price.  At the same time, the American labor union movement has been vilified as socialist, communist, or worse, even though that same labor movement brought to Americans almost every advance in worker rights that still exist today.  This is true no matter that you belong to a labor union or not.  I'm talking about the forty hour week, overtime pay, vacation pay, sick leave, child labor laws, equal pay for women, the minimum wage, employer provided health care, all of these things can trace their origins back to the American labor movement, certainly not to the largess of the employers.  I don't hesitate to add that each and every one of these worker rights are under assault by corporate America, and largely the republican party.

And where are we going?  Unless unchecked, the American worker will find himself,  increasing desperate for work, and increasingly the only work available will be servant work for the wealthy.  Our pay, benefits, and our jobs will be at the mercy of the royalty we serve.  We will have voted ourselves right into a nation of royals and serfs.

If even a small minority of republicans would simply forget the side issues that the party panders to, abortion, gay rights, gun laws, religion, repeal of "Obama care", welfare, and race, and a larger number of apathetic democrats would get out and vote for their best interests, that is, an America that is not dominated by the wealthiest 1%,  we could truly take this country back.

With friends like this.............

I received some Face book fan mail today.  Someone, apparently a younger person, sent to me an anonymous letter in the mail taking issue with something I posted on Facebook.  I looked back at my wall postings and could not find exactly what this person was referring to, so I think it must have been a comment I made about someone else's posting.  I'm reprinting the letter below, and would appreciate any comments about the letter.  So, here it is.

"Mr. Eudy.  I saw a note you put on facebook last week and I thought it was strange.  Do you really think all republicans are rich?  We are not.  And all of us are zealots? We aren't that either.  I said something to my parents about it (you worked for them a couple of years ago.)  They said its just because you are probably not a christian and you don't think like we do.  So I decided to tell you how we think so you might understand.  We believe in God and the Bible.  In the Bible there are commandments that we try to follow.  One is that we have no other god before us.  Sometimes it seems that ppls (peoples I guess) political parties become their religion.  Even if it goes against God's ways.  Another is not to covet someone else's possesions.  It seems democrats are always mad because someone else has more than they have.  And they want the government to take it away and give it to them.  They say they don't pay their fair share.  How is that when 1/2 the ppl don't pay anything?  Another commandant is not to kill.  Abortion is killing a baby.  They say it's a women's body and she can do anything she wants.  Christians believe everything belongs to God, even our bodies.  The bible say's they are God's temple.  The Bible says homosexuals are an abomination.  Democrats say it's OK and want to promote it.  Democrats want God out of our schools and government.  I've read a lot about the founding fathers.  Prayer was included in almost all of their meetings.  They even said all of our rights come from God.  Why do democrats now want God out of our lives?  They say that republicans are mean spirited.  It looks to me like the mean ones are the democrats saying bad stuff about the republicans all the time.  And they get mad and burn stores and knock out windows.  We don't want to starve ppl.  We give food to the food banks and volunteer at the Salvation Army.  It's usually Christian groups that do this.  I haven't seen any atheist groups down there or ppl that don't go to church.  Christians tithe (give ten percent for the poor, missionaries, etc.) because they want to.  Not because they have to.  They showed not long ago that the vice president only gave a couple of hundred dollars to charity for one year.  Looks like he's the mean one to me.  Christians try to obey the laws.  How come the president wants to let illegal mexicans stay in the country.  He should make sure the laws are obeyed.  Christians don't usually do drugs, at least all the ones we know.  But the people that are in the democratic party sure use drugs.  Like president Clinton.  He admitted using drugs.  And he lied in court.  The democrats said that was OK because he was just lieing about cheating on his wife.  That sounds crazy to a Christian!  Anyway, dad says you can't change ppls politics.  They are usually what their parents taught them to be and don't really think things through.  But I think if you went to church and became a Christian, you might change the way you think and understand why you don't have to be rich to be a republican.  I don't want to sound mean because we try not to be mean.  I hope you start going to church."

Wow!  How do I respond to that.  If anyone know where I posted the lead in about rich republicans and zealots, please let me know.   I would like to know the context around the remark  It admittedly sounds somewhat intemperate.  I certainly don't believe all republicans are rich, nor are all or even most of them zealots.

A couple of comments.

It seems that this person believes that republicans pretty much have a lock on Christianity, and democrats are all godless sinners.  I expect that most of my friends would take issue with this regardless of their political affiliation.

No, we are not mad because someone else has more than us, we are mad because many people in the richest country in the world do not have enough to get by on, and we believe it is the government's role to alleviate that problem.  It, by the way, is a basic Christian belief that it is the government's role to do so, read the 13th chapter of Romans, or read Psalm 72, or just read the New Testament and read the words of Jesus about the rich and the poor.

One thing I agree with the writer on is what he said about his father's views on politics.  People often believe what their parents tell them and don't really think things through.  Case in point.


  

The Nature of Sin

I was having dinner with some friends a few weeks ago, when, as usual, the conversation veered away from polite, onto the verboten topics of religion and politics. I'm like a victim of Turret's syndrome, I just can't stop myself from blurting out things that get people riled up.

The issue that got the ball rolling was the question of whether homosexuality is a choice, or is caused by genetics or some other reason. My statement that I believed that in males, choice is seldom a factor, but that in women, choice is often a part of the equation, immediately got the women at the table stirred up. I've written about this before, and if you are interested in my reasoning, look up my blog from December 2009 "The New Reality".  By the way, I  recently read about a study of Identical twins, both male and female which corroborated my reasoning.

The conversation followed several vectors. From the cause of homosexuality, we went on to weather or not the marriage of gay couples should be recognized, and if so, should they be allowed to be married in the church. We were in uneasy agreement about the first part, but I was definitely in the minority on the second. We all pretty much agreed that gay couples should be afforded the same legal rights as straight couples, but I argued that they should be allowed to be married in the church as well. The chief argument against gay marriage in the church, was that it would sanction a sin as stated in the Bible. Here the conversation took a surprising third turn.

My agnostic views are pretty well known, so I guess the question one of my friends asked should not have surprised me. He asked me how I can even recognise sin if I am not convinced in the existence of God. I cast about for an answer, muttering something about my moral compass not needing religion to show me the way, but like most spontaneous conversation, there was not time for deliberation. I've had time to think about it, so here we go.

When I think about the Biblical concept of sin, there are two main sources, the first being the Ten Commandments, and secondly, the many specific sins delineated all through the Bible, especially in the old Testament.

I think that they can all be broken down into two categories, the first, being questions of fairness, and the second , sins of social convention.

In the ten commandments, the last six fall under the first category, and the first four under the second. It is certainly unfair to lie, steal, murder, commit adultery, dishonor your parents, and generally covet your neighbor's property. The first four are about the social conventions that strenghten the bonds of monotheism in the Jewish and Christian faiths. You can see that the commandments of fairness have withstood the test of time, while the first four have been somewhat subject to the pressures of modern times, especially the commandment to honor the sabbath.

Beyond the Ten Commandants, most of the other sins of the Bible fall under the category of sins of social conventions. Some are still pertinent, while others are archaic and are widely ignored. All are subject to revision as societies knowledge and beliefs change.  These conventional sins cover a lot of ground, including masturbation, homosexuality, dietary requirements, dress, etc.  In many cases, it seems that the rules were instituted for control of the masses by the church, especially the control of women.

I find it interesting that the Cardinal sins:  Lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy , and pride, seem to be largely ignored by most, or even embraced as virtues by my objectivist friends.  These sins are essentially sins of selfishness.

Personally, I find that the Golden Rule (a version of which can be found in almost all religions); "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you",  encompasses  everything I need to know about sin.  I may occasionally get lost, but this moral compass keeps me headed in the general direction.

,