SOCIAL INEQUALITY: THE HAVES AND THE HAVE-NOTS
Jane Hass-VietVet Webzine
|
There are two major reasons that we have such inequality in America-the haves and the have nots. The working poor, according to Thomas Kane and Beth Shulman, authors of the Social Inequality Report, are at a place in our country where they cannot climb into the middle class. This was not always true and a Lincoln could go from the log cabin to the White House. Now, for the working poor, it is more likely the outhouse.
WHY? Unskilled labor jobs that put the working poor far behind offer few of the middle class benefits such as health care. College is almost out for poor kids but has become increasingly a biggie in landing a living wage job. Poor students can most assuredly forget college even if they can get help; the cost of college is going up faster than either wages or government grants. According to the Report, the long-standing gap in college attendance between poor and more affluent students has widened.
Now, this is really interesting: although a group of poor kids and more affluent ones may have similar grades and test scores, 84% of the more affluent kids go on to college but just 68% of poor kids go. Why? Income! And, another, WoW : 73% of American kids who have some resources(parents) went on to college despite low test scores and grades, while just 48% of low income students with about the same scores went to college.
There's fewer Pell grants for poor kids; and, if they want to borrow $2500 bucks is about the limit-tell me any school where they can go for that and pay board, etc. NoWay! I guess if they are super-motivated, they could take ten years and get a degree, but that takes lots of fortitude and luck for one thing.
In the recent past, unskilled laborers could expect a decent wage and reasonable benefits from unionized factory jobs but many of these jobs have moved overseas. So, what do they do? They work at nursing homes as janitors, occasionally aides, child care workers, building janitors, hotel maids, security guards, or low-level construction jobs; their wages are often so low that many full-time workers still live below the poverty line, usually without health insurance, sick pay, or disability pay.
OK, I WANT TO KNOW: how are these people going to identify with the wealth of our politicians. Can politics solve this sort of problem? I think so. Maybe if you are wealthy and your roots are where John Edwards says his are, then you can identify and lead the charge. I'm skeptical. Let's hope and pray that this crop of millionaires will fulfill some of the promises to the poor. For the good of the country, we must close the gap.
August 7 2004
|
In all the emphasis these days on the Vietnam war, Revisionist history about that sorry war is alive and well. I guess former Defense Sec, McNamara's "I was wrong, terribly wrong" message got out. Regardless, it is still revisionist history. We made beaucoup mistakes in Vietnam, but it was not a civil war. And, although Kerry is doing much to rehabilitate the Vietnam Vet, (whether the vet wants it or not) who knows for what purpose!
The concept of the overwhelming mistake of Vietnam: that we sided with the wrong side in a civil war is flat out inaccurate. It was not a civil war. South Vietnam was a separate country, even though its leadership was incredibly corrupt-still they were legitimate. And, at the times, we had a foreign policy that was fighting communism and keeping smaller, more vulnerable countries from falling to the Communists. And, without stating it, hoping to forestall genocide in Southeast Asian. We were unsuccessful on all sides.
In all probability, it is questionable whether we should have attempted Vietnam. We didn't understand and in the beginning, we felt we had a moral imperative. We should have finished the job as painful as it might have been. We could have with a fraction of the men we had; we should have kept the Special Forces soldiers, now called Special Operations.
In Afghanistan, we learned what highly trained, dedicated, and experienced soldiers can do. Our going to Nam was not the problem: the problem was there was no clear cut mission in why we were there and what we were going to do and when we were going to leave! Add the fact that we didn't have a clue as to the corruptness of the South Vietnamese government, not to mention how determined an enemy could be if fighting on its own soil.
With these facts in mind, it is understandable why many of us see Vietnam in Iraq. That having been said, let's don't have a revisionist history about Vietnam when discussing Iraq--not one and the same.
Aug. 11 2004
|
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld who has about as much credibility these days as Jimmy Swaggart saying that we don't need a draft, the volunteer army has served us well. Yeah, I hear you: nearly 40% of our soldiers in Iraq are Reservists and National Guard.
The Volunteer Army is doing so well that we are shifting a whole brigade of troops from Korea to Iraq. The Volunteer Army is so successful that the Army has quit allowing what's called delayed entry, i.e., in the old days, a youngster joining the service could delay his entry until he finished college, went on his honeymoon, etc.-no longer as the military is so short of manpower.
The Volunteer Army is so successful that it has instituted something called, "stop loss" whereby over 10,000 soldiers have to stay in, many of them, National Guard and Reserves, who are having to remain up to 15 months. And, get this, 787 lesbian, gay, and bisexual types have been discharged this year alone.
Let's face it: How can we call it a Volunteer Army when we now have so many forced to stay? Let's face it: I think the good Secretary of Defense has been smoking something and it ain't Camels.
Aug 09 2004
|
|
SOME E-MAILS DRIVE ME NUTS!!! BY KELLY THOMAS
|
Conservatives are willing to sacrifice what they know are screwups in Iraq, i.e., prosecuting the war to make sure that their very ideological social issues are addressed in the White House, but not really true that they will get exactly what they want- some beliefs are too
conservative; it is not feasible that some of the more conservative philosophy can be adopted by the current administration because it will not be agreeable to Congress or the majority of the American people.
For instance, The President can't really effect the issue of abortion overall; women will continue to have them, gay marriage will still be an issue (only lesbians get a pass since the Bible doesn't mention them); the president couldn't even get all his own party to vote on an amendment.
What the President can effect is the prosecution of the war. Our present Incumbent cannot bring it about. He can't lead the rest of the world and he is unwilling to do what he needs to do about increasing troops, etc; the mismanagement of the war is simply catastropic: Bush refuses to dump his liabilities, i. e., Cheney and Rumsfeld. Americans will continue to die and with the CURRENT President, there will be no reasonable exit; can't happen.
And, yet, anybody who has any sense knows that we simply cannot leave Iraq now that we have deposed Saddam; it would be a hotbed forever of terrorist activity.
Conservatives will not change their minds. And, I don't have any doubt that Kerry is saying what we want to hear, but he said it: increase the troops, not use the National Guard and Reserves as they have been, increase vets benefits, etc. I was amazed about the tenor of the convention toward the military.
And, any objective person will say the same thing. They said it; if anybody had told me that at a Democratic Convention, Vietnam veterans, reviled twenty/thirty years ago, now suddenly are heroes! I am still in a state of shock!
I don't even particular like Kerry but all these emails from these generals and zealots slamming his Vietnam service, medals, the time he spent there, etc.; hey, the guy at least went!. I'm not going to spend much time defending Kerry or even promoting him for that matter, but here's my prediction: Bush is going down and he's going down big. I'm glad because I don't want to feel that we're sitting here letting young Americans die without any real plan.
August 04 2004
|
|
|
