Budget Cuts and Unrest

UPDATE 11/10/09 @ 9AM: Overnight, the Milwaukee County Board passed a budget with none of Walker's privatiztion plans included. Of course, Scott Walker has veto power over the budget and is planning to use it. If you live in Milwaukee County, call your county supervisor and request they override Walker's veto. Find who your supervisor is here.


Reading about the fight against Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker's budget cuts brings a smile to my face. The Journal Sentinel article lies here. If you don't know the history, Mr. Walker wants to privatize a large amount of Milwaukee County jobs to encourage a balanced budget. What particularly troubled me is the hundreds, if not thousands of jobs that would be lost by outsourcing such things as the security element of the Milwaukee County courthouse and the Milwaukee County Zoo. Scenario: privatize two jobs and the private employer will figure out how to do those two jobs with one person, sloppily and with an unqualified employee.

I'm reminded of what the Caledonia Village Board did to attempt to reduce budget deficit: cut the BUS service in Caledonia. Idiotic, in my opinion. I personally know two people who use that system to get to school or work. Luckily, today it was announced that the Village Board will reconsider removing the 26K from next year's budget. This is a direct result of published opinions and phone calls to board members.

What does Mr. Walker think he is going to accomplish by cutting all of these positions? I swear, if it were up to people like himself, the government budget would be zero. Pave your own roads! Teach your own kids! Face it, Milwaukee's tax revenue will continue to sink as long as people with money move out and the impoverished are forced to bear the costs. Shouldn't Mr. Walker be spending more time trying to get people back into the city and not driving them away? Bring tax revenue back up, don't watch it slip and cut services to match its demise. It is impossible to cut all city services, you'll have riots bigger than Rodney King's. I'm just afraid that it will be too late when everyone realizes what's going on. I know that I don't live in Milwaukee County, but I did for a period of time and I would encourage those who do to support the Milwaukee County Board as they attempt to deflate Mr. Walker's job-sucker.

PS: If you are an employee with the State of Wisconsin or any municipality within it, you'll certainly be in danger if and when Scott Walker's bid for governor is successful.

Accidental Spillage of Economic Thoughts

I've become cynical.

Example one and only: capitalism. Why is capitalism bad? Well, it's not completely bad. It's only bad if you are on the wrong end of the income range. The Gini coefficient is a number that reflects the level of equality in a given country; 0 would reflect a perfectly equal income distribution, 1 would reflect one person earning every single dollar. The United States is becoming more unequal, meaning we are slowly floating towards one guy having all the money. The United States Census Bureau shows that in 1969 the Gini coefficient was .361 and increased to .463 in 1999. It will be higher this year, I promise. I use the Census Bureau's numbers to eliminate the chance of integrity accusations (or produce them, depending whose side you're on).

Back to the question: why is capitalism bad? A person's goal within a capitalist society is none other than to accumulate wealth. Endlessly and ruthlessly. It thrives off of big cities, large homes, fast cars, and brainless television shows. Those who are not fortunate enough to accumulate wealth (most often it is inherited through various means) are the ones who live miserable lives. No health insurance, with bankruptcy often looming within one slip into the mop closet. No large, beautiful homes; maybe an iPod or decent car to make one feel somewhat important. No three month vacations to tropical paradise, only a trip to Disneyland for the baby-kids.

Anyways, I know how to fix it. Get rid of capitalism. Where does the cynicism come in? Right here: those in power are not going to get rid of capitalism. Sure, comrade, start a revolution. Good luck battling the nuclear warheads, Captain Planet. What's my problem, you ask; when and where did I go soft? When I realized that the amount of people on my side equals the amount of people in Rush Limbaugh's doctor-shopping network. I love huge cities! I love making and spending money! I love the stock market, watching my stock in horribly unethical companies SPLIT and RISE AGAIN! As many of you know, I love my iPhone!

Wait...


There's my inspiration. Hi, inspiration, I missed you.

If trend continues, America will ultimately be left with one guy with every single dollar, right? How many people do you know that can successfully beat up a few hundred million people? I'm playing a game that does not yet have enough players. Once people get educated on what is actually underneath all of their money (or lack of it), I'm convinced that the world will change for the better. Until then, I'm going to get rich. I'm going to get rich enough to give 99.9% of my money away and still be rich.

Be grateful that you have the ability to take a hot shower. Be grateful that you have the ability to shower. Be grateful that you can cleanse your body with clean water, while there are currently millions of children in hospitals as we speak dying of diseases related to water-borne bacteria. Be grateful that you don't have to walk thirty miles each day to gather firewood for fuel. Be grateful that your parents weren't killed by a militia fighting over basic necessities. Be grateful that you live in America and stop being such an asshole.

To the 417 people that wrote Jody Harding's name on the ballot.

Way to attempt to disenfranchise yourself. If you don't know what I'm talking about... scroll down a couple months or so.

On the Liberation of Nonhumans (Animals, duh)

This is something I had to write for class, but it was fun to write, so I thought I'd share it.

Considering that killing animals for food has been a dominate pastime in the United States, it is hard to imagine that America could ever accept any such theory such as Peter Singer's. In "All Animals are Equal", Singer defends other species as oppressed, which is not much of a surprise. The focus of his argument is that other species should be given the same type of consideration that humans do when dealt with. Singer's thesis is best said on the first page: "…I am urging that we extend to other species the basic principle of equality that most of us recognize should be extended to all members of our own species" (Singer 402).

Singer argues that many movements have succeeded in changing peoples' attitudes toward different groups of humans. Instead of becoming complacent in the wake of this, it is important for us to understand that oppression may still exist in different places. His main interest is to extend a liberation movement to animals. Referring to a satirizing letter by a relevant philosopher, Singer argues that just as women's rights have been laughed at, so have nonhuman's rights.

Since it is true that not all humans are equal in every capacity, it is unacceptable to say that animals cannot have rights because they are not equal to humans, according to the author. To help us understand more, Singer has included a passage from Jeremy Bentham that supports his point. Bentham argues that based on the fact that something may suffer, it deserves the same respects as suffering human beings.

Singer brings up many relevant points to support his argument. Humans can thrive off of vegetables. Animals are treated poorly just to give advantages to humans in the dietary, scientific, and recreational fields. Even though a dog may be able to outwit a human at certain moments, humans treat dogs as if humans were deities.

The author then goes on to criticize philosophy for being anthropocentric. Philosophers should have figured this out a long time ago, but they are humans. Singer also battles philosophers who have defended being human-centered. It is hard for him to accept that humans have no problems giving the same treatment to handicapped humans, especially ones that maybe of the comatose sort, and continue to harm fully functional animals.

Overall, Singer wants humans to stop being universally dominant to other species so that animals can enjoy themselves just as racial minorities may have. Singer concedes that humans and animals are not equals, but also points out that tall humans and short humans are not equal. The best way to realize this is to give nonhumans just as much "consideration" as humans may give their sociological counterpart.

Reflection

Singer's argument is very persuasive, as he proposes giving animals rights is a moral necessity. It is hard for me to argue against this, but a few questions remain. I would love to agree with Singer and rely solely on vegetables to help lower my obscene cholesterol level, but I cannot eat too many pizzas without eventually asking for pepperoni.

If we were to give the same consideration to animals as we do to disabled humans, for example, could we expect animals to give the same consideration to their disabled brethren? If a baby bird breaks its back flying into a pane of glass, will its mother care for the bird for the rest of its life? Will any bird from any species care for the disable bird? I would not think so. Humans take care of their disabled simply because they have the means to do it. As far as I'm concerned, birds have been around a lot longer than our species has, and it has not learned a millionth of what we have as human beings.

To address the issue of suffering, I will agree that an animal suffers when it is poked, prodded, or sliced. Will the animal remember the suffering? In the case of a dog getting hit with a newspaper, it will. On the other hand, humans have not even solved this problem themselves. If a human gets struck by lightning, it may very well develop a fear of lightning. Not only lightning, but it may develop a fear of anything that buzzes, glows, or hisses with the power of electricity. Is it true, then, that the relationship between a cloud and land may actually be an oppressive one to human beings? How can we prevent, or even abstain from causing, the suffering of animals, when humans still suffer themselves?

I love my golden retriever, and yes, I do believe she has some sort of soul. If she was the last object on Earth, and I was hungry, she would probably have to die. On the other hand, if the dog were smart enough to realize that I was the last food source available on Earth, I would not blame her for eating me. This is not going to happen because I have tricked the dog into believing that either I am a combination of its biological father and mother, or that I am a dog superior to her in many ways. Her abstention from eating me, is not because I am her friend and certainly not because I am a human with morals.

No matter how I feel on the subject, I believe Singer's point is still very relevant. The author did an excellent job explaining his position on the issue.

Singer, Peter. "All Animals are Equal." Ideals and Ideologies: A Reader. Ed. Terrence Ball and

Richard Dagger. Pearson: New York, 2009. 402-411.

New Orleans

I feel so at home in this city... it's sunny and warm, halfway underwater, and always moving. The .357 String Band (from Milwaukee) played a show last night in Jackson, MS. We were pretty much the only ones there; it was booked at the last minute, but it was still great. Tonight they're playing here in NOLA and it will be even better. This city is extremely touristy, but the locals make up for it. Anyways, I left my phone charge in MS and I'm debating whether to pick up another one or just wait to get back to Jackson. Regardless, don't be surprised if I don't respond any to any messages til Sunday after later tonight. Hopefully this weekend will be good enough to make up for the 16.5 hour drive we have to get back to Racine. Holler, at me if you want anything. I will see ya'll back home!