There’s of course no way to claim otherwise. The gap between America's (let alone the world's) rich and poor is an ever widening gap, possibly in direct alignment with the hole in the ozone (though the jury’s still out on that one). Now for the first time it seems there are people in our government willing to do something about that. Passing legislation to raise minimum wage is an excellent first step,but it’s far from the solution. Clearly we have here an interesting quandary. As the payment of the lowest rung rises, shouldn't that pay for the highest rank? I’ve heard it argued by staunch conservatives that the poor are important to the economy or it’s good for them. While if everyone somehow had the salary of Barry Zito (Link />our economy would certainly have some problems, it’s hardly a good idea to claim that people making 7.00 an hour is exactly a glowing example of something that’s good for a person?
Take a trip to a slum someday, take a trip in to the places my dear old Mom calls "Bombed out Beirut" and tell me if that’s good for people. But oh yes, some conservative scholars seem to tell us that Walmart is the answer,. Yes, wall frickin mart. That’s indeed the answer to the economy; make everything available to the poor for less. They will be able to live better lives. Just because they have more stuff for less.
The idea of the amount of material possessions indicating ones wealth is indeed one that dates well back to the middle ages. Back then, the size of your napkins was a fine indicator of wealth. However, in a society where waste is even damaging the atmosphere, hasn't it come time to bring about anew paradigm? The responsibility has to move somewhere: we have to go from being realist consumers existing within a strictly capitalist system to being interested in the greater good.
I know I’m sounding like a borderline socialist (which I’m not, I’m actually closest to a libertarian) but I do realize that somehow some way its time to bring about a real substantitive change. A change so great that it insures the sustainability of humanity, not just the America or the UK but all of humanity. I find it interesting that the US’s military spending is more than the next 12 highest-spending countries in the world combined. When I listen to realists debate things like socialized healthcare, tax cuts and the like, I wonder where that all that money will come from. The answer of course couldn’t be more plain, our military budget. In a society where the mighty do for the frail, a world in which each power is required to do a certain amount could we possibly bring about a true balance. I am not proposing all things be equal, but a strict insurance that all entities have the necessary resources to survive.
As of 12:01 am tonight New Jersey will <a href= Link the third state to offer civil unions</a>. I applaud the state in which I currently reside on its commendable work on furthering progressive agendas, however clearly many in the gay community are not satisfied. I can understand their concerns and reasoning for seeking the right to be married. There’s a certain pride to the state of wedlock, a true connection. Yet is it practical to find a way to offer the right of wedding to the homosexual community. This is an idea that I’ve debated for a long time. The best I’ve come to is a compromise that I think is the only way to appease the religious right. In reality I can’t picture them ever giving permission for homosexual couples to be married. My solution is in my mind relatively simple. Separate the idea of marriage to the religious organizations, and only allow the government to offer civil unions. Change the definition of civil union to have all the connotations rights and responsibilities of the current concept o marriage, and make being wed strictly a religious act. If one wants to get technical, marriage first and foremost is after all a religious institution which was incorporated in to the rights of governments since the beginning of modern politics; however the reality of our present situation and quest for equality makes this no longer viable. The state can not be expected to serve the institution as such and must be focused on the needs of the people. I know this is not ideal, I'd love to here thoughts on this.
Please remember that Campus Progress' terms of use do not allow promoting or endorsing any particular political party or candidate for office. Posts or comments that do this will be deleted.
Posts
!
