We lost our beloved dogs — Petey, the handsome pit bull mix, and Sky, our semi-famous and talkative greyhound — within a month of each other in late Summer 2015.
For different reasons, we are still not over either one of them. Petey was a loyal friend who had a rough go of it early in his life. Tattooed on my arm, he will be with me forever. I see his beautiful face every morning in the mirror. Sky also had a rough time finding a home, being passed back and forth several times. I felt a mental connection with him — I could start a conversation just by giving him “that look.” A victim of bone cancer, a common curse among greyhounds, I will never get his pain out of my head.
Suddenly we were down to one dog, but we needed some time before looking for another. Bump Bailey lavished in the attention as he tried to fill our broken hearts.
Eventually we decided it was time to add to our family and hoped that Bailey would like to have a companion. He got along well, from the first moment with Petey and Sky, so we weren’t worried that he would take issue letting another dog into our house.
We were mistaken.
We tried to introduce him to three other dogs of his size and mixed breed. We searched animal shelter and rescue groups and took him to test compatibility. Bailey wasn’t having it. One adorable little dog couldn’t get even get in the driveway. Another would not leave Bailey alone, pestering him and testing his patience. Still another couldn’t even pass the sniff test.
The process was difficult as it broke our hearts to see all the dogs that needed a home. Ready to give up, we thought we would try a greyhound. They are big, sometimes independent, and Bailey got along well with Sky. We found one that needed a home, a beautiful brindle named Birdie. The foster family was leaving for a weekend and we thought we would invite Birdie over and give it a try.
We slowly introduced her to our home and everything went well. She was sweet and loving and quickly made herself at home. We thought we had another dog.
But Bailey pouted. Really pouted.
Normally, Bailey was always on top of me, wrestling or playing with his squeaky toy. He cuddled with my wife in her chair. He actually laid on the desk when we worked in the office. He just had this infectious silly attitude and loved life.
While Bailey didn’t engage with Birdie, we noticed that he was separating himself from us. He sat in the corner of the room, wouldn’t play, and wouldn’t cuddle. He slept on the floor rather than our bed. It’s like we betrayed him, breaking his heart.
It also broke ours and we sadly returned Birdie when the foster family came home.
What we didn’t expect was Bailey to hold a grudge, but he did. Even after Birdie left, he ignored us, slept on the floor, wouldn’t play. He knows that when I get down on the floor, it’s play time — his tail wagging rapidly as he runs to get his toy. But now, he would literally leave the room.
It was sort of unbelievable. Dogs are supposed to love unconditionally, and we wondered if we would get our Bailey back. Then we left for vacation and we were gone for 16 days. When we got back, things slowly returned to normal. We now do everything we used to do. I think he missed us and decided it was time to forgive us.
It’s hard not rescuing another dog; my wife had to take herself off all the rescue sites. But Bailey is my best friend and I can’t hurt his feelings again. He might be selfish with our love, but he doesn’t know different. After all, he spent months in a quiet, cold cage all by himself. I can’t imagine how miserable he must have been.
Like any relationship, there are up and downs. It’s been a rough couple of years for all of us, but we worked it out.
Friday, November 17, 2017
Thursday, October 26, 2017
278. Photography is the art of the real
I have enjoyed photography for several years now; it’s something I do purely for leisure.
While I do enter photo contests such as the Lorain County Fair and Erie Shore Photography Club, it’s really just for fun. I appreciate the feedback and the chance to improve my skills. Honestly, I am interested in learning beyond the basics of photography but not the intricacies of professional photography. I favor taking my camera with me when I travel to get photos but do not normally engage in “photo shoots.” I take the best photo I can.
Occasionally I get a good photograph. But then, the odds are on my side — the ability to take thousands of photographs with digital cameras and get a few good ones is simple math.
I took a college course that included developing our own film a long time ago. But even with the digital camera, the more I learn about photography, the more I feel like an amateur. In this age in which almost everyone has a pretty good camera on their cell phone, good photographers are underappreciated.
People will sometimes say, “That’s a nice photo, you must have a good camera.” That’s both true and a little simplistic. Good photos by good photographers take a lot of skill and preparation. There are many factors that go into a great photo. On the other hand, the “auto mode” on cameras is pretty good and the distinction between professionals and amateurs is often subtle.
For me, there are several aspects to photography. One aspect is to preserve the moments in our lives. These are the natural photos captured in the spontaneous course of an activity. These might include birthdays or graduations. The goal is a nice photo to commemorate the event, not necessarily to get an award-winning shot.
There is also photography for documentation. If I saw the extinct Dodo bird in my backyard, I’d sure want a photo to document it. Similarly, photography can document the activities of our lives. While I would like to get the best photo ever of the Grand Canyon, my photos also serve to record my time and experience there.
But there is some controversy within photography. I learned some tips at a talk given by a professional photographer and he described the extent a photographer will go to get his or her shot. He described an advertisement he did portraying a volleyball player diving in the sand. Of course, in reality it was a model, lying on a bench (out of sight) angled into the sand and dozens of takes of someone tossing the ball to her.
Photography competitions often permit photographers to take advantage of the tools available in post-production. These tools have a wide range of detail, effects, and alternations designed to improve photos. Some are simple, such as cropping or converting a photo to black and white. Others are more complicated and dramatically alter the image. At a recent competition, there was a beautiful photo of an owl with a badly injured eye. A judge suggested that a photographer could copy the good eye and cover up the bad eye. When the images are altered to the extreme, it perhaps represents more of an image of art than a product of photography.
Similar to many perspectives in life where science and technology can modify reality, photos can be changed so much that they are no longer authentic. For me, a photograph should represent truth as the visual depiction of a place in moment and time taken to be preserved, treasured, or shared. Enhanced pictures should maintain the integrity of that being photographed. If an object or landscape is photographed, it should exist in reality. A picture of the Empire State Building should represent the truth of the building at the moment in time. When a photographer starts adding clouds and removing people, it no longer represents the reality of the moment.
If the photo is altered to the point that it is no longer represents that which it purports to have photographed, it has, in my opinion, crossed over to art — and represents how the photographer interpreted the moment and not what is inherently suggested by the photo itself. It succeeds and is appreciated as art, but the distinction should be noted.
Declan O’Neill, writing about a photographer who was stripped of his title as “Photographer of the Year,” noted the distinction: “But for the ‘purists’ his accolade would have reinforced the idea that we can alter images in the name of ‘art’ and still claim they are photographs.”
However, he also notes that “many photographers do not object to using Photoshop to enhance photographs but they do object to its use in altering photographs.” If an owl only has one eye, then he only has one eye. Life is not perfect.
I appreciate and sometimes engage in the artistic aspect of photography. It is enjoyable and gratifying to take a photo and turn it into a creative “work of art.” I am not taking a moral stance on the issue — only that is difficult to know when a photographer has crossed that line. Regardless, the photographer should be honest as to the true nature of the picture.
While I do enter photo contests such as the Lorain County Fair and Erie Shore Photography Club, it’s really just for fun. I appreciate the feedback and the chance to improve my skills. Honestly, I am interested in learning beyond the basics of photography but not the intricacies of professional photography. I favor taking my camera with me when I travel to get photos but do not normally engage in “photo shoots.” I take the best photo I can.
Occasionally I get a good photograph. But then, the odds are on my side — the ability to take thousands of photographs with digital cameras and get a few good ones is simple math.
I took a college course that included developing our own film a long time ago. But even with the digital camera, the more I learn about photography, the more I feel like an amateur. In this age in which almost everyone has a pretty good camera on their cell phone, good photographers are underappreciated.
People will sometimes say, “That’s a nice photo, you must have a good camera.” That’s both true and a little simplistic. Good photos by good photographers take a lot of skill and preparation. There are many factors that go into a great photo. On the other hand, the “auto mode” on cameras is pretty good and the distinction between professionals and amateurs is often subtle.
For me, there are several aspects to photography. One aspect is to preserve the moments in our lives. These are the natural photos captured in the spontaneous course of an activity. These might include birthdays or graduations. The goal is a nice photo to commemorate the event, not necessarily to get an award-winning shot.
There is also photography for documentation. If I saw the extinct Dodo bird in my backyard, I’d sure want a photo to document it. Similarly, photography can document the activities of our lives. While I would like to get the best photo ever of the Grand Canyon, my photos also serve to record my time and experience there.
But there is some controversy within photography. I learned some tips at a talk given by a professional photographer and he described the extent a photographer will go to get his or her shot. He described an advertisement he did portraying a volleyball player diving in the sand. Of course, in reality it was a model, lying on a bench (out of sight) angled into the sand and dozens of takes of someone tossing the ball to her.
Photography competitions often permit photographers to take advantage of the tools available in post-production. These tools have a wide range of detail, effects, and alternations designed to improve photos. Some are simple, such as cropping or converting a photo to black and white. Others are more complicated and dramatically alter the image. At a recent competition, there was a beautiful photo of an owl with a badly injured eye. A judge suggested that a photographer could copy the good eye and cover up the bad eye. When the images are altered to the extreme, it perhaps represents more of an image of art than a product of photography.
Similar to many perspectives in life where science and technology can modify reality, photos can be changed so much that they are no longer authentic. For me, a photograph should represent truth as the visual depiction of a place in moment and time taken to be preserved, treasured, or shared. Enhanced pictures should maintain the integrity of that being photographed. If an object or landscape is photographed, it should exist in reality. A picture of the Empire State Building should represent the truth of the building at the moment in time. When a photographer starts adding clouds and removing people, it no longer represents the reality of the moment.
If the photo is altered to the point that it is no longer represents that which it purports to have photographed, it has, in my opinion, crossed over to art — and represents how the photographer interpreted the moment and not what is inherently suggested by the photo itself. It succeeds and is appreciated as art, but the distinction should be noted.
Declan O’Neill, writing about a photographer who was stripped of his title as “Photographer of the Year,” noted the distinction: “But for the ‘purists’ his accolade would have reinforced the idea that we can alter images in the name of ‘art’ and still claim they are photographs.”
However, he also notes that “many photographers do not object to using Photoshop to enhance photographs but they do object to its use in altering photographs.” If an owl only has one eye, then he only has one eye. Life is not perfect.
I appreciate and sometimes engage in the artistic aspect of photography. It is enjoyable and gratifying to take a photo and turn it into a creative “work of art.” I am not taking a moral stance on the issue — only that is difficult to know when a photographer has crossed that line. Regardless, the photographer should be honest as to the true nature of the picture.
Monday, October 9, 2017
277. Believe it, timing is everything
My wife and I celebrated our 20-year anniversary this month. For the occasion, we decided to drive out west and see as many places as we could.
Over 16 days we drove more than 4,500 miles through the heart of the country. We drove through deserts, mountains, rolling hills and over rivers. We traveled through cities, along Old Route 66, visited small towns, even ghost towns and over areas so flat you could see for miles. We got to enjoy the diversity of topography this country offers.
The trip, however, also traveled along the country’s social and political spectrum. Our first stop was St Louis, Mo., one day after riots broke out after a white ex-police officer was acquitted for the killing of a black suspect. It was an up-close view of the racial tensions that still plague this country.
From St. Louis we headed to Oklahoma City. Along the way, friends of a friend were attacking me, calling me an idiot and other expletives (which I am now used to) because I had the audacity to suggest that terrorists come in all colors and ideologies. After he shared a video of ISIS members proclaiming their hate for America, I sent a panoramic photo I took of the victims of the Oklahoma City bombing, the second worst terrorist attack on this country — committed by a white supremacist. The conversation quickly went silent.
After leaving Oklahoma City we traveled to Flagstaff, Ariz., so that we could tour the Grand Canyon. Along the way we saw hundreds of wind turbines, which was encouraging. Unfortunately, we could also smell the factory farms miles before we saw them. We took a train ride from Williams, Ariz., complete with a staged train robbery, to the Grand Canyon. It was one of several national parks we visited. We also visited the Painted Desert, Petrified Forest, and Aches National Park. We rode scooters through Red Rock Canyon and quickly drove through a very crowded Zion National Park.
Next was the mainstay of our vacation — Las Vegas.
We had never been to Las Vegas, and it was someplace we wanted to visit at least once. When you’re getting older, you start thinking about these things. We’re not much for gambling, though enjoy a little from time to time, but wanted to experience the environment, energy, and shows. One of the days we spent touring the Hoover Dam and enjoyed a boat ride on Lake Mead. I enjoyed Las Vegas much more than I anticipated. The hotels and resorts are gigantic and just amazing. Over the course of out vacation, we took over 5,000 photographs.
We left Las Vegas on Thursday, Sept. 28. Stephen Paddock checked in the same day. We could see Mandalay Bay from our hotel, and my newlywed niece stayed there just a week before we arrived.
Every single terrorist attack or mass shooting is both heartbreaking and infuriating. However, it does feel a little different because we were just there. The randomness of these senseless acts triggers feelings of helplessness.
As a country, maybe we are finally fed up with this. I don’t want to hear any more prayers, or cliche hashtags like #vegasstrong. Obviously, I support the communities and their way of dealing with the tragedies, but we keep allowing this to happen. I was having lunch with my mom when a politician got on television and said that we should not use this to further a political agenda. Others have said it is too soon to discuss gun control. I physically start to shake at the stupidity.
For those who were killed, it’s already too late. Preventing mass shootings or at least making them more difficult is not a political agenda, and it is hypocritical to even suggest otherwise. Had the shooter been Muslim, President Donald Trump would have been on Twitter within minutes lauding himself and promoting his Muslim bans. Fox News would have salivated at the opportunity to promote its conservative agenda. For an outstanding article on this subject, read Thomas Friedman’s, “If Only Stephen Paddock Were a Muslim.” It is a flawless examination of this hypocrisy.
Those who continue to do nothing in Congress, regardless of party and regardless of how much money he or she receives from the NRA, are, in partly responsible for each mass murder. Our founding fathers, when they wrote the Second Amendment, could not have anticipated the weaponry that exists today. Paddock had a ridiculous arsenal of weapons and nobody needs an automatic rifle or semi-automatic rifle. As the joke goes, if you need a AK-47 for hunting, then you suck as a hunter and need a new hobby. Of course, it’s not just gun control; it’s the American culture that promotes and glamorizes violence. It’s not unpatriotic to suggest that this country needs reasonable gun control.
We finished our trip driving through Colorado on Saturday night on our way back to Ohio, and just a few hours later they got 14 inches of snow, closing the road we just traveled. We had great weather, cooler than it was here in Ohio. We were lucky to have a wonderful trip and celebration of our 20-year anniversary.
It’s true, timing is everything.
Over 16 days we drove more than 4,500 miles through the heart of the country. We drove through deserts, mountains, rolling hills and over rivers. We traveled through cities, along Old Route 66, visited small towns, even ghost towns and over areas so flat you could see for miles. We got to enjoy the diversity of topography this country offers.
The trip, however, also traveled along the country’s social and political spectrum. Our first stop was St Louis, Mo., one day after riots broke out after a white ex-police officer was acquitted for the killing of a black suspect. It was an up-close view of the racial tensions that still plague this country.
From St. Louis we headed to Oklahoma City. Along the way, friends of a friend were attacking me, calling me an idiot and other expletives (which I am now used to) because I had the audacity to suggest that terrorists come in all colors and ideologies. After he shared a video of ISIS members proclaiming their hate for America, I sent a panoramic photo I took of the victims of the Oklahoma City bombing, the second worst terrorist attack on this country — committed by a white supremacist. The conversation quickly went silent.
After leaving Oklahoma City we traveled to Flagstaff, Ariz., so that we could tour the Grand Canyon. Along the way we saw hundreds of wind turbines, which was encouraging. Unfortunately, we could also smell the factory farms miles before we saw them. We took a train ride from Williams, Ariz., complete with a staged train robbery, to the Grand Canyon. It was one of several national parks we visited. We also visited the Painted Desert, Petrified Forest, and Aches National Park. We rode scooters through Red Rock Canyon and quickly drove through a very crowded Zion National Park.
Next was the mainstay of our vacation — Las Vegas.
We had never been to Las Vegas, and it was someplace we wanted to visit at least once. When you’re getting older, you start thinking about these things. We’re not much for gambling, though enjoy a little from time to time, but wanted to experience the environment, energy, and shows. One of the days we spent touring the Hoover Dam and enjoyed a boat ride on Lake Mead. I enjoyed Las Vegas much more than I anticipated. The hotels and resorts are gigantic and just amazing. Over the course of out vacation, we took over 5,000 photographs.
We left Las Vegas on Thursday, Sept. 28. Stephen Paddock checked in the same day. We could see Mandalay Bay from our hotel, and my newlywed niece stayed there just a week before we arrived.
Every single terrorist attack or mass shooting is both heartbreaking and infuriating. However, it does feel a little different because we were just there. The randomness of these senseless acts triggers feelings of helplessness.
As a country, maybe we are finally fed up with this. I don’t want to hear any more prayers, or cliche hashtags like #vegasstrong. Obviously, I support the communities and their way of dealing with the tragedies, but we keep allowing this to happen. I was having lunch with my mom when a politician got on television and said that we should not use this to further a political agenda. Others have said it is too soon to discuss gun control. I physically start to shake at the stupidity.
For those who were killed, it’s already too late. Preventing mass shootings or at least making them more difficult is not a political agenda, and it is hypocritical to even suggest otherwise. Had the shooter been Muslim, President Donald Trump would have been on Twitter within minutes lauding himself and promoting his Muslim bans. Fox News would have salivated at the opportunity to promote its conservative agenda. For an outstanding article on this subject, read Thomas Friedman’s, “If Only Stephen Paddock Were a Muslim.” It is a flawless examination of this hypocrisy.
Those who continue to do nothing in Congress, regardless of party and regardless of how much money he or she receives from the NRA, are, in partly responsible for each mass murder. Our founding fathers, when they wrote the Second Amendment, could not have anticipated the weaponry that exists today. Paddock had a ridiculous arsenal of weapons and nobody needs an automatic rifle or semi-automatic rifle. As the joke goes, if you need a AK-47 for hunting, then you suck as a hunter and need a new hobby. Of course, it’s not just gun control; it’s the American culture that promotes and glamorizes violence. It’s not unpatriotic to suggest that this country needs reasonable gun control.
We finished our trip driving through Colorado on Saturday night on our way back to Ohio, and just a few hours later they got 14 inches of snow, closing the road we just traveled. We had great weather, cooler than it was here in Ohio. We were lucky to have a wonderful trip and celebration of our 20-year anniversary.
It’s true, timing is everything.
Tuesday, September 12, 2017
276. Time to band together
Nick Hanauer is a billionaire who exemplifies the American dream.
He worked hard, started businesses, made wise investments. Yet, despite his personal success, he has expressed his concern about the growing inequalities in our country. He is brash and controversial, but asserts his beliefs and opinions without apology.
In 2014, Hanauer wrote “The Pitchforks Are Coming… For Us Plutocrats,” for Politico and then recently reiterated his concerns in “To My Fellow Plutocrats: You Can Cure Trumpism.”
The use of “pitchforks” provides the imagery:
“But the problem isn’t that we have inequality. Some inequality is intrinsic to any high-functioning capitalist economy. The problem is that inequality is at historically high levels and getting worse every day. Our country is rapidly becoming less a capitalist society and more a feudal society. Unless our policies change dramatically, the middle class will disappear, and we will be back to late 18th-century France. Before the revolution.”
Our economy is so large, it is easy to get lost in it. There is economic theory and political interest, for example. There are exaggerations, simplifications, red herrings, and lies. It is easy to laud the successful and demonize the unsuccessful. It is easy to blame the government, lobbyists, and legislatures.
However, “us against them,” that is the 99 percent versus the one percent, is rarely united. There was Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party, but the opponents differed.
Imagine that you were one of 300 people on a wealthy island. On this island, there was plenty of money and luxuries for everyone, but 20 percent of it is controlled by just three individuals. Of the $1 million in assets available, three people owned $200,000 of it. Of course, in truth, they control the other people through the essentials, like housing, labor, and food. The bottom 150 would be forced to share $80,000.
So while the island had enough for everyone to have $3,333 each, half the people would only have $533. The “middle class” would get $1,866, while the three on the top each get $66,666 each.
Why would the 150 people living on $533 not simply band together and take out the three individuals on the top and share the $200,000?
This is what Hanauer is referencing. Eventually the people on the bottom will get tired of fighting each other for scraps and seek a more equitable society. He wrote:
“And so I have a message for my fellow filthy rich, for all of us who live in our gated bubble worlds: Wake up, people. It won’t last.
If we don’t do something to fix the glaring inequities in this economy, the pitchforks are going to come for us. No society can sustain this kind of rising inequality. In fact, there is no example in human history where wealth accumulated like this and the pitchforks didn’t eventually come out. You show me a highly unequal society, and I will show you a police state. Or an uprising. There are no counterexamples. None. It’s not if, it’s when.”
The stakes are rising.
People keep fighting for the $15 minimum wage (which Hanauer is an advocate for), overtime rules were recently overturned, and President Donald Trump and the Republicans want to reform taxes. In response, Hanauer started a Change.org petition against the tax cuts for the wealthy: “I believe that not one penny in tax cuts should go to millionaires, billionaires, and wealthy corporations. Everyone knows that the biggest lie in economics is that tax cuts for the rich create growth and jobs. When Republicans talk about tax reform, they’re really talking about trickle down nonsense.”
I have been warning about the growing inequalities for years. But when I say it, I am a socialist. When poor people say it, they are told to work harder. Maybe people will listen when a rich person says it.
The economy thrives when people earn sustainable wages. Hanauer agrees, “In plain English, the real economy is you: Raise wages, and one increases demand. Increase demand and one increases jobs, wages, and innovation. The real economy is simply the interplay between consumers and businesses.”
The 99 percent needs to unite and say enough is enough. There is a difference between success and greed, and the top one percent has been very greedy for a long time. Put aside your partisan politics and join forces with your family, neighbors, and co-workers to demand a life better for all of us. The wealthy need to pay more taxes — much more in taxes. Corporations need to pay a sustainable minimum wage, pay overtime, stop catering to their wealthy shareholders, and stop hiding money overseas.
Hanauer was recently on the wonderful program, “1A” with Joshua Johnson, to talk about his viewpoints. He said, “I assume that there are a third of the people in this country my message can never reach, there are third of the people who are too dumb to understand, or who are so tribalized.”
When Johnson pointed out that people might not like being called dumb, Hanauer responded, “Luckily, I am not running for anything, so it doesn’t matter. I think we can create a consensus with the more rational two-thirds of the country.”
He worked hard, started businesses, made wise investments. Yet, despite his personal success, he has expressed his concern about the growing inequalities in our country. He is brash and controversial, but asserts his beliefs and opinions without apology.
In 2014, Hanauer wrote “The Pitchforks Are Coming… For Us Plutocrats,” for Politico and then recently reiterated his concerns in “To My Fellow Plutocrats: You Can Cure Trumpism.”
The use of “pitchforks” provides the imagery:
“But the problem isn’t that we have inequality. Some inequality is intrinsic to any high-functioning capitalist economy. The problem is that inequality is at historically high levels and getting worse every day. Our country is rapidly becoming less a capitalist society and more a feudal society. Unless our policies change dramatically, the middle class will disappear, and we will be back to late 18th-century France. Before the revolution.”
Our economy is so large, it is easy to get lost in it. There is economic theory and political interest, for example. There are exaggerations, simplifications, red herrings, and lies. It is easy to laud the successful and demonize the unsuccessful. It is easy to blame the government, lobbyists, and legislatures.
However, “us against them,” that is the 99 percent versus the one percent, is rarely united. There was Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party, but the opponents differed.
Imagine that you were one of 300 people on a wealthy island. On this island, there was plenty of money and luxuries for everyone, but 20 percent of it is controlled by just three individuals. Of the $1 million in assets available, three people owned $200,000 of it. Of course, in truth, they control the other people through the essentials, like housing, labor, and food. The bottom 150 would be forced to share $80,000.
So while the island had enough for everyone to have $3,333 each, half the people would only have $533. The “middle class” would get $1,866, while the three on the top each get $66,666 each.
Why would the 150 people living on $533 not simply band together and take out the three individuals on the top and share the $200,000?
This is what Hanauer is referencing. Eventually the people on the bottom will get tired of fighting each other for scraps and seek a more equitable society. He wrote:
“And so I have a message for my fellow filthy rich, for all of us who live in our gated bubble worlds: Wake up, people. It won’t last.
If we don’t do something to fix the glaring inequities in this economy, the pitchforks are going to come for us. No society can sustain this kind of rising inequality. In fact, there is no example in human history where wealth accumulated like this and the pitchforks didn’t eventually come out. You show me a highly unequal society, and I will show you a police state. Or an uprising. There are no counterexamples. None. It’s not if, it’s when.”
The stakes are rising.
People keep fighting for the $15 minimum wage (which Hanauer is an advocate for), overtime rules were recently overturned, and President Donald Trump and the Republicans want to reform taxes. In response, Hanauer started a Change.org petition against the tax cuts for the wealthy: “I believe that not one penny in tax cuts should go to millionaires, billionaires, and wealthy corporations. Everyone knows that the biggest lie in economics is that tax cuts for the rich create growth and jobs. When Republicans talk about tax reform, they’re really talking about trickle down nonsense.”
I have been warning about the growing inequalities for years. But when I say it, I am a socialist. When poor people say it, they are told to work harder. Maybe people will listen when a rich person says it.
The economy thrives when people earn sustainable wages. Hanauer agrees, “In plain English, the real economy is you: Raise wages, and one increases demand. Increase demand and one increases jobs, wages, and innovation. The real economy is simply the interplay between consumers and businesses.”
The 99 percent needs to unite and say enough is enough. There is a difference between success and greed, and the top one percent has been very greedy for a long time. Put aside your partisan politics and join forces with your family, neighbors, and co-workers to demand a life better for all of us. The wealthy need to pay more taxes — much more in taxes. Corporations need to pay a sustainable minimum wage, pay overtime, stop catering to their wealthy shareholders, and stop hiding money overseas.
Hanauer was recently on the wonderful program, “1A” with Joshua Johnson, to talk about his viewpoints. He said, “I assume that there are a third of the people in this country my message can never reach, there are third of the people who are too dumb to understand, or who are so tribalized.”
When Johnson pointed out that people might not like being called dumb, Hanauer responded, “Luckily, I am not running for anything, so it doesn’t matter. I think we can create a consensus with the more rational two-thirds of the country.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)