Tuesday, September 25, 2012
The 47% Dichotomy
There has been much ado lately about Romney being recorded at a meeting talking about "the 47%". Of course, everything has been blown out of proportion. In fact, Romney is making a very simple and good point, and Obama has made the exact same point himself in other speeches and policy-making.
Mitt Romney pointed out that there are about 47% (Obama's current support according to polls) who prefer government regulation to freedom. Then he pointed out that the 47-49% who pay no Federal Income Tax are not likely to be swayed by promises of lowering the Federal Income Tax. (It's the shame of the Democrats that they can't understand the simple concept of a Venn diagram.)
Obama said, in a speech when he was Senator, that he hoped to build a Democrat majority out of the people who received government assistance. That's basically the same thing Romney is saying! Obama is capitalizing on the Change that has put more people on government assistance than ever before and the Hope that they will support him to keep the "Obama money" comin'. You can see this clearly in his "Life of Julia" ad, in which he tries to impress upon us our complete inability to succeed without lots of government aid programs.
A while back, Romney claimed that he was not going to focus his speeches on the poor, because they were already well-served by government programs that he didn't plan to mess with. Obama has claimed that he is giving up on the working class. (The *white* working class, specifically, which is not only a horrible racist thing to say, but also will end up meaning the entire working class... unless he plans to start refusing government aid based on the color of your skin.) I have to wonder why Obama has decided to give up on the most hurting group in the country at a time when a family making *above the median income* is eligible for food stamps. It could be that he realizes privately that those who were independent under Bush will not be happy about losing half their wealth and (on average) 12% of their income in order to fall underneath the expanding government umbrella and receive government funding for which they must follow the government rules for everything from diet to housing.
So the question then to all of us is this: Which side? Which path? Which country? The one where aid goes to those in need and the rest of us flourish on our own two feet? Or the "'Julia' couldn't build that" country where the politicians hope that you'll vote blindly for them as long as they keep giving you free stuff? Both Romney and Obama have clearly stated the dichotomy and chosen a side. And I'm afraid the third party vote will not be strong enough to choose a third way... if indeed there is a third way between liberty and subjugation.
Note: Have you heard the latest, by the way? It appears that Romney is a hypocrite because he overpaid his income taxes (by not declaring all charitable contributions), and a hypocrite because he is one of the "47%" due to having paid no income taxes. You just can't win with these guys, even when they have to subvert the basic rules of mathematics in order to hate you.
Friday, September 21, 2012
My chicken tender recipe
1 package chicken tenders (1.5-2lbs)
Peanut oil
Grated Parmesan (Kraft will do) cheese
Garlic powder
Curry powder
Salt
Whole wheat flour
Plain bread crumbs
Parsley flakes
2 or 3 eggs (depending on how much meat you have)
1. Thaw the chicken tenders.
2. If you want to serve buttered brown rice with them, start it in the rice cooker now. In one bowl, put five heaping large spoonfuls of whole wheat flour, six of bread crumbs (Six of whole wheat flour, seven of bread crumbs as you get closer to 2lbs of chicken), generous amount of garlic powder, curry powder, parsley flakes, and grated parmesan, a couple pinches of salt. Stir.
3. Start your wok (I use a nonstick wok) about 1/2in full of peanut oil on just below Medium on the stove burner. Slice the chicken tenders lengthwise to make more of them. Put two eggs (three as you approach 2lbs chicken) in another bowl and beat them well. Put out a third bowl lined with paper towels for the finished tenders.
4. Dip each tender first in egg, then in the flour/crumb mix, then lay in the wok. Don't put them close enough to touch. Cook for usually about 6min on one side, turn, cook them another 5min. Often takes several batches to get the job done.
5. Serve. (I usually divide them among us and serve them with buttered brown rice. My husband likes eating them with ranch dressing. Today, I am going to slice an avocado and serve avocado slices with it too.)
Note: At the end, I pour the remaining egg into the remaining flour mix, stir it up a bit, chop it into bits with a spoon, and dump it into the oil after turning off the burner. I turn them at about 2min. This little bit of economical food 'disposal' creates something my children call 'crunchies' and plead for eagerly.
Peanut oil
Grated Parmesan (Kraft will do) cheese
Garlic powder
Curry powder
Salt
Whole wheat flour
Plain bread crumbs
Parsley flakes
2 or 3 eggs (depending on how much meat you have)
1. Thaw the chicken tenders.
2. If you want to serve buttered brown rice with them, start it in the rice cooker now. In one bowl, put five heaping large spoonfuls of whole wheat flour, six of bread crumbs (Six of whole wheat flour, seven of bread crumbs as you get closer to 2lbs of chicken), generous amount of garlic powder, curry powder, parsley flakes, and grated parmesan, a couple pinches of salt. Stir.
3. Start your wok (I use a nonstick wok) about 1/2in full of peanut oil on just below Medium on the stove burner. Slice the chicken tenders lengthwise to make more of them. Put two eggs (three as you approach 2lbs chicken) in another bowl and beat them well. Put out a third bowl lined with paper towels for the finished tenders.
4. Dip each tender first in egg, then in the flour/crumb mix, then lay in the wok. Don't put them close enough to touch. Cook for usually about 6min on one side, turn, cook them another 5min. Often takes several batches to get the job done.
5. Serve. (I usually divide them among us and serve them with buttered brown rice. My husband likes eating them with ranch dressing. Today, I am going to slice an avocado and serve avocado slices with it too.)
Note: At the end, I pour the remaining egg into the remaining flour mix, stir it up a bit, chop it into bits with a spoon, and dump it into the oil after turning off the burner. I turn them at about 2min. This little bit of economical food 'disposal' creates something my children call 'crunchies' and plead for eagerly.
Friday, September 7, 2012
Are they better off?
So this election season is an interesting one. The two choices are very stark. There is a deeper contrast than there has been for some time. Someone looking at this election would have her pick of issues to address. Today, I want to address one that Romney has been pushing, a question that Obama has a hard time answering... but I want to address it from a different perspective than I have heard anybody address thus far.
Are you better off than you were four years ago?
See, Obama has been going about apologizing and being generally deferrent in his foreign policy. This hasn't worked very well, mostly because the people who hate us are going to hate us regardless, the people who love us don't want us to be weaker, and the few European heads of state who really hated the way Bush did things were replaced in their next election with leaders willing to be a little more kind. But that's really beside my point, so let's move along.
Democrats teach that no man may become rich without stealing his wealth from someone else. Their wealth redistribution policies are based on "fairness". When Republicans say "fairness", what they mean is that it is fair for you to be able to profit from your labor. Democrats mean that it is fair for the people who were disenfranchised by your wealth creation practices to gain from your profit. Thus far, we have mostly seen Democrats apply this on a national level... when they decry the horrible lives of the poor, they mean the American poor, the ones among whom 80% have air conditioning and nearly two-thirds have cable or satellite television. They are not talking about people who live in huts and subsist on a couple of dollars per month.
Obama, on the other hand, has been applying the concept a little more globally. America needs to be taken down a peg. Why? Because we are so rich, that makes us the reason why these other nations are poor. Because one of Mitt Romney's children is attending private school, a Sudanese child goes hungry tonight. We need to give back, he says, on a global level. We have a responsibility, not a Christian responsibility to be charitable to those in need as fellow creatures favored by God, but a guilt responsibility because we 'got rich from their poverty'. Let's set aside the obvious problems with that for a moment and move on.
So America has more people in poverty than ever before. The economy is running at a very low ebb and we are told it is the "new normal". Our debt has been downgraded. Romney and the other Republicans are running on this, asking you if you are better off, and saying that America is a great nation that deserves to be great. Obama is the abusive parent who says that you don't deserve what you have... Romney is the one trying to restore your self esteem and assuring you that you are not somehow sub-par simply for having what you own. This is all well and good, of course, but it is all on an American perspective. So let's look at this from a global perspective.
Is the world better off than it was before due to America's debasement?
We have lost wealth... the average family has lost 40% of its wealth in the recession. Who has gained it? Are Kenyans living any better than they were before? Are Sudanese widows and orphans suffering less for our efforts? Is America giving any more money than before to educate poor children in Africa, or to feed them? Obama told the Egyptian president to step down. (Kind of arrogant for a nation that's supposed to be wallowing in self-debasement.) Do Egyptian women have more power than before? More rights? Under Bush, Afghani women and girls could seek jobs and be educated. Are they as likely to be allowed those rights now?
Is anybody in the world better off for our loss of wealth? European countries have floundered, partly under their own weight, but partly due to the depth and length of our recession. China has managed a short-term surge by buying our debt, but as our dollar devalues, their position degrades as well. American manufacturing jobs pay better in much of China than their own jobs. When Americans have less money, they buy less, they call for less manufacturing... And have we been giving any more money to their poor than before, as a result? Have we been doing more for Indian dalits? Are we saving any Chinese rural women from having their unborn babies killed against their will? Have we been helping anybody with our loss?
Obama and Romney will ask us whether it is worth losing our wealth and prestige in order to aid foreigners. I hope Romney will have the insight to point out that it is our strength that not only we, but others in the world should want to see, because we benefit other nations the most when we have something to offer.
And just as our poor are not richer for the wealth loss of our rich, the world is not better for the wealth loss in America.
Are you better off than you were four years ago?
See, Obama has been going about apologizing and being generally deferrent in his foreign policy. This hasn't worked very well, mostly because the people who hate us are going to hate us regardless, the people who love us don't want us to be weaker, and the few European heads of state who really hated the way Bush did things were replaced in their next election with leaders willing to be a little more kind. But that's really beside my point, so let's move along.
Democrats teach that no man may become rich without stealing his wealth from someone else. Their wealth redistribution policies are based on "fairness". When Republicans say "fairness", what they mean is that it is fair for you to be able to profit from your labor. Democrats mean that it is fair for the people who were disenfranchised by your wealth creation practices to gain from your profit. Thus far, we have mostly seen Democrats apply this on a national level... when they decry the horrible lives of the poor, they mean the American poor, the ones among whom 80% have air conditioning and nearly two-thirds have cable or satellite television. They are not talking about people who live in huts and subsist on a couple of dollars per month.
Obama, on the other hand, has been applying the concept a little more globally. America needs to be taken down a peg. Why? Because we are so rich, that makes us the reason why these other nations are poor. Because one of Mitt Romney's children is attending private school, a Sudanese child goes hungry tonight. We need to give back, he says, on a global level. We have a responsibility, not a Christian responsibility to be charitable to those in need as fellow creatures favored by God, but a guilt responsibility because we 'got rich from their poverty'. Let's set aside the obvious problems with that for a moment and move on.
So America has more people in poverty than ever before. The economy is running at a very low ebb and we are told it is the "new normal". Our debt has been downgraded. Romney and the other Republicans are running on this, asking you if you are better off, and saying that America is a great nation that deserves to be great. Obama is the abusive parent who says that you don't deserve what you have... Romney is the one trying to restore your self esteem and assuring you that you are not somehow sub-par simply for having what you own. This is all well and good, of course, but it is all on an American perspective. So let's look at this from a global perspective.
Is the world better off than it was before due to America's debasement?
We have lost wealth... the average family has lost 40% of its wealth in the recession. Who has gained it? Are Kenyans living any better than they were before? Are Sudanese widows and orphans suffering less for our efforts? Is America giving any more money than before to educate poor children in Africa, or to feed them? Obama told the Egyptian president to step down. (Kind of arrogant for a nation that's supposed to be wallowing in self-debasement.) Do Egyptian women have more power than before? More rights? Under Bush, Afghani women and girls could seek jobs and be educated. Are they as likely to be allowed those rights now?
Is anybody in the world better off for our loss of wealth? European countries have floundered, partly under their own weight, but partly due to the depth and length of our recession. China has managed a short-term surge by buying our debt, but as our dollar devalues, their position degrades as well. American manufacturing jobs pay better in much of China than their own jobs. When Americans have less money, they buy less, they call for less manufacturing... And have we been giving any more money to their poor than before, as a result? Have we been doing more for Indian dalits? Are we saving any Chinese rural women from having their unborn babies killed against their will? Have we been helping anybody with our loss?
Obama and Romney will ask us whether it is worth losing our wealth and prestige in order to aid foreigners. I hope Romney will have the insight to point out that it is our strength that not only we, but others in the world should want to see, because we benefit other nations the most when we have something to offer.
And just as our poor are not richer for the wealth loss of our rich, the world is not better for the wealth loss in America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)