Anybody Here Read Howard Zinn Or Noam Chomsky

[jbilyeu]

I'm not saying reading either of these guys will make you an instant expert, but it would expand your understanding of the way America works.

Most efforts to extend democracy to our own citizeny has historicly been met with state sponsored violence (or turning a blind eye to this violence when it occurs)

examples:

freeing slaves

womens suffrage

trade unionism

civil rights

anti Vietnam movement

All of these things ran counter productive to amercan corporate profits and so were not advocated for by the government until the public outcry became deafening. So i guess democracy works but it is greatly encumbered by our for profit government. Democracy is an afterthought to those in government who are busy lining their own pockets as well as their constituents.

I think our democracy is in trouble; but it always has been.

[SkyWriter]

I think our democracy is in trouble; but it always has been.

that's obvious from 'cartoon network' :)

[whitev70r]

I've come across Chomsky and some of his writings. I think he is a prophet, someone speaking from America who has a critical and intelligent voice whom we should listen to and think about.

[starfish]

First off, America is not perfect.

American politics is and never has been perfect.

American politicians will never make the perfect decision to make everyone happy.

Howard Zinn's or Noam Chomsky's vision of America will never exist.

No offense, but I don't think that most Americans will or could ever share the marxist, socialist, anarchistic. anti-semite, fascist view points of your heroes.

[whitev70r]

No offense, but I don't think that most Americans will or could ever share the marxist, socialist, anarchistic. anti-semite, fascist view points of your heroes.

No one is suggesting that as an option. What about Sweden, the land of our Volvos. Sweden runs on a socialist government and they consistently outperform US in every category that ranks quality of life. Not looking for a marxist nation, just not the present capitalistic one where there is such high levels of poverty with children going to school hungry in America's, homelessness, such rampant consumerism, and of course crazy stupid foreign policies.

[starfish]

No one is suggesting that as an option. What about Sweden, the land of our Volvos. Sweden runs on a socialist government and they consistently outperform US in every category that ranks quality of life. Not looking for a marxist nation, just not the present capitalistic one where there is such high levels of poverty with children going to school hungry in America's, homelessness, such rampant consumerism, and of course crazy stupid foreign policies.

You are repeating the statistically false mantra of highly emotional charged outpourings of the typical radical left-wing liberal inwhich data to back up these claims is non-existant. There are no children in America who go to school on a daily basis hungry. A majority of the homeless people in America are homeless because they choose to be so. Consumerism is not a crime or immoral behavior. American capitalism drives the worlds economy.

Facts about Sweden

1. No new net jobs have been produced in the Swedish private sector since 1950.

2. None of top 50 companies on the Stockholm stock exchange has been started since 1970.

3. Well over 1 million people out of a work force of around four million did not work in 2003 but lived on various kinds of public welfare programs, such as, pre-pension schemes, unemployment benefits, sick-leave programs, etc."

4. Sweden has dropped from fourth to 14th place in 2002 among the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries (i.e., affluent industrialized countries) in terms of GDP per capita since 1970.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/...02740-9436r.htm

[whitev70r]

You are repeating the statistically false mantra of highly emotional charged outpourings of the typical radical left-wing liberal inwhich data to back up these claims is non-existant. There are no children in America who go to school on a daily basis hungry. A majority of the homeless people in America are homeless because they choose to be so. Consumerism is not a crime or immoral behavior. American capitalism drives the worlds economy.

"There are NO children in America who go to school hungry?" I've met some. In order for you to know that none exist, you would have to know all the children in America.

"Homeless because they choose to be so." Again, that is a huge assumption and generality that demonstrate your lack of personal awareness of homeless people.

You, on the other hand, are using archaic ways of measuring the overall success of a country, namely only economic indicators. The GNP is not the only indicator of the quality of life. New Economics take into consideration factors like labour, environment, family, leisure, voluntarism, community involvement, education, children's well being, health care, poverty, homelessness, etc. In fact, in almost all cases, the higher the GNP of a country, the worst the rest of the indicators are, including quality of life. I invite you to join the 21st century of economics.

New Economics Foundation Link to Information

Real World Economics – New Economics Foundation

The international economic system creates damaging inequalities between rich and poor, and fuels climate change and environmental degradation. Through Real World Economic Outlook, nef aims to expose the problems with the international finance and economic systems and create appropriate remedies. We are also researching and campaigning on changes to global governance to tackle international issues like climate change, and work by jubilee research continues nef’s pioneering involvement in tackling international debt. transforming markets goes beyond corporate responsibility to set out a new vision for harnessing and channelling enterprise to meet social and environmental need

Well Being – New Economics Foundation NEF

NEF's leading aim is to create a new economy that serves people and the planet. We want to begin to redefine "wealth" and "progress": to judge our systems and economies on how much they create the world we actually want, rather than how much money they generate. NEF's well-being programme was set up to find ways to promote policies and practical solutions that help people live more fulfilled lives. Our people in public services, timebanks and participation and democracy projects aim to put people back at the centre of their services and communities and decision-making over what affects their lives.

Finally, a ranking of 21 different countries on Child Well Being, Sweden - 2nd; US - 18th

Edited February 24, 2007 by whitev70r

[ThePOWERtoRULE]

Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky are excellent writers but both are VERY left-leaning in their writing.

Still worth reading, just remember there's two sides to every story.

You guys can argue about Sweden's system vs. the US, but each country has their own cultural demands from their government. Socialization and people's demands create government, not the other way around.

[whitev70r]

Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky are excellent writers but both are VERY left-leaning in their writing.

Precisely, sometimes I think you have to have some writers/thinkers on the 'extreme' side in order to bring the other perspective to some sort of moderation or balance. It's like a pendulum, they are far left, US is far right ... that's why I proposed some models in the middle.

[starfish]

"There are NO children in America who go to school hungry?" I've met some. In order for you to know that none exist, you would have to know all the children in America.

"Homeless because they choose to be so." Again, that is a huge assumption and generality that demonstrate your lack of personal awareness of homeless people.

You, on the other hand, are using archaic ways of measuring the overall success of a country, namely only economic indicators. The GNP is not the only indicator of the quality of life. New Economics take into consideration factors like labour, environment, family, leisure, voluntarism, community involvement, education, children's well being, health care, poverty, homelessness, etc. In fact, in almost all cases, the higher the GNP of a country, the worst the rest of the indicators are, including quality of life. I invite you to join the 21st century of economics.

What are you implying? You first state that we have "high levels of poverty with children going to school hungry in America," and when questioned about your broadbrush statement you reply that you met some? That is not an example of common regularity found in America and I know you are smart enough to realize that. There is such utter nonsense in the fact that you never question parental responsibility. I don't need the government to be my daddy.

You questioned me about not knowing "all the children of America." I don't fall for this liberal guilt complex crap where when you have no evidence to support your outrageous argument you place the burden of truth upon your opponent to prove your theory wrong. How about some real facts first? If you research this topic of hungry children attending school from countries around the globe you find the same thing over and over again, the self-proclaimed do-gooder liberal attacking capitalism for the failure of some extremely small minority to function on a daily basis as they deem to be necessary not as the individual requires in his life. People have a right to live as they see fit, if they are unable to care for themselves society has formed many safety nets. These programs to be successful need to wean as many able bodies off of them as to not become a permanent teet to the contributors or taxpayers wallets.

In regards to the homeless, you state that I lack a personal awareness of homeless people. Although I do not regularly meet with the homeless community for discussion of their perils, I do read reports and can draw from them observations. Many of the homeless are mentally ill, drug abusers, alcoholics, victims escaping from abusive relationships and societies malcontents. There are many government, religous and charity groups already in place to feed, shelter, clothe and provide medical care, job training and assistance to those who seek help. This assistance is not a government mandate to accept. We could offer to put up the entire homeless membership in a four star resort and still we would have a large homeless population because a majority segment of this populace have choosen their place in society to be homeless because they are unwilling to follow any simple basic rules period. Those members should be jailed.

On an uplifting note, at least we can share some common ground in my acceptance of your complement on my "archaeic" economic principles. I am willing to further learn about your 21st century new economics theories, but it sure smells like more liberal revisionism. Show me some data from some countries with a low GDP, a large diverse population such as ours and the qualities of life you refer to. It would be very interesting to read about this existance of this socialist liberal utopia. Meanwhile, I'll just continue to breathe our polluted air and drink our polluted water while I chop down some more trees to watch the polar bears drown as our planet turns into a global warming fireball caused by my capitalistic economic affluences.

[starfish]

Precisely, sometimes I think you have to have some writers/thinkers on the 'extreme' side in order to bring the other perspective to some sort of moderation or balance. It's like a pendulum, they are far left, US is far right ... that's why I proposed some models in the middle.

You live in The Peoples Republic of Massachusetts and you are proclaiming that the US is far right? :lol:

[whitev70r]

What are you implying? You first state that we have "high levels of poverty with children going to school hungry in America," and when questioned about your broadbrush statement you reply that you met some? That is not an example of common regularity found in America and I know you are smart enough to realize that. There is such utter nonsense in the fact that you never question parental responsibility. I don't need the government to be my daddy.

You questioned me about not knowing "all the children of America." I don't fall for this liberal guilt complex crap where when you have no evidence to support your outrageous argument you place the burden of truth upon your opponent to prove your theory wrong. How about some real facts first?

Is 18% nationally in the US high enough for you? AND in this short summary below, it also addresses your other implied assumptions, the relationship between children in poverty and parenting or 'parental responsibility'.

Taken from National Center for Children in Poverty - Article: The New Poor

In 2004, approximately 18 percent of all children in the United States lived in poverty. Over the last five years, child poverty has risen substantially, increasing by 12 percent. After hitting a low of 12.1 million children in 2000, more than 1.4 million children have been added to the poverty rolls, becoming members of this country’s “new poor.” Children who grow up in poverty experience significant hardships that can have lasting effects well into adulthood.

At the national level, family characteristics have had little relationship with whether children experienced increasing poverty between 2000 and 2004. Overall, increases in U.S. child poverty did not vary by parents’ employment status, parents’ education level, or parents’ nativity. These national statistics mask varying economic realities across regions.

This report examines regional differences in the family characteristics of children who have seen the greatest rise in poverty. During the last five years, children living in the Midwest experienced the biggest increases in child poverty, accounting for 43 percent of the national rise in the number of poor children. At the same time, poverty did not increase among children living in the West.

18% is approximatley 13 million children in the US that live in Poverty. I am actually Canadian and our numbers are about the same, hovering 20% or 1 in 5. Another article by the Nat'l Center for Children in Poverty: Article: Who Are the Poor?

Edited February 24, 2007 by whitev70r

[ACBarnett]

All I know about howard zinn and noam chomsky is that they both live in my town. I used to bump into chomsky when I walked my dog in one of the big stretches of conservation land around here.

Other than that I've never read any of their books, but we did do a few zinn readings when I was in HS and I thought the guy had some good points but that they were sometimes lost in his delivery and overshadowed by his more outrageous accusations and opinions.

[starfish]

If poverty is defined as generally lacking adequate nutritious food for one's family, suitable clothing, and a reasonably warm, dry apartment in which to live, or lacking a car to get to work when one is needed, then there are few poor persons remaining in the United States. Real material hardship does occur in America, but it is limited in both extent and severity. The bulk of the "poor" live in material conditions that would have been judged comfortable or well-off just a few generations ago.

The old maxim that "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer" is simply untrue. Material conditions of lower-income Americans have improved dramatically over time. In fact, living conditions in the nation as a whole have improved so much that American society can no longer clearly remember what it meant to be poor or even middle class in earlier generations.

But higher material living standards should not be regarded as a victory for the War on Poverty. Living conditions were improving dramatically and poverty was dropping sharply long before the War on Poverty began. The principal effect of the War on Poverty has been not to raise incomes, but to displace self-sufficiency with dependence. A second consequence of welfare has been the destruction of families. When the War on Poverty began, 7.7 percent of children were born out of wedlock. Today, the figure is 32 percent. Using the Census Bureau's own standards, a child born to a never-married mother is 700 percent more likely to live in poverty than is a child born to a husband and wife whose marriage remains intact.

The Census poverty report has been tightly linked to the War on Poverty since its inception. The implicit message of the poverty report is that government should throw more and more welfare benefits at low-income communities in an effort to artificially raise family incomes above the official poverty thresholds. Such welfare policies have been disastrous.

Despite spending $7 trillion, the War on Poverty--by eroding the work ethic and marriage--has failed. By undermining families' capacity for self-support, the War on Poverty expanded the clientele of needy persons. Government became caught in a trap: The more aid that it gave, the more persons in apparent need of its aid emerged. With the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, the federal government finally began to break away from this failed entitlement mentality. But the Census Bureau report continues to embody the old, failed philosophy of unending free handouts.

The Census poverty report also has had a distorting effect on the national dialogue by focusing attention exclusively on income and material living standards while ignoring values and behavior. The report is rooted in the belief that "poverty" causes social problems such as crime, drug use, school failure, illegitimacy, and dependence. This belief, although common, is false. Clearly, there were far more truly poor persons in earlier generations than there are today. (In fact, nearly all adults alive today had parents or grandparents who grew up "poor" in the sense of having incomes below the current Census thresholds, adjusted for inflation.) If it were true that "poverty" causes social and behavioral problems, then earlier generations should have been awash in drugs, crime, and promiscuity. But this was not the case. Most social problems have expanded as incomes have increased.

In reality, it is the norms and values within a family, rather than its income, that are critical to a child's well-being and prospects for success in future life. Ironically, conventional welfare, with its misplaced emphasis on artificially boosting income, has a strongly damaging effect on the very values that are critical to a child's success. By ignoring values and undermining the norms of work, self-control, and marital stability, the War on Poverty has harmed those whom it intended to help.

Overall, the Census poverty report is deeply flawed as a measurement tool and misleading as a policy indicator. The report not only exaggerates poverty, but, even more tragically, encourages policymakers to focus on the symptom of income shortage while ignoring behavioral problems, which are the root causes of the lack of income. As such, the report serves both society and the poor badly.

Heritage Foundation.org

Food is so abundant in the United States that the liberals have to advertise heavily to find new people/victims willing to accept these government handouts that are often found to be unnecessary. "whitev70r" 's belief that the country has gone to hell in a handbasket with gross dispairity of rich and poor is unsubstantiated. The poor in this country share little if anything with the poor around the world. Today many of these so labeled poor Americans have never tasted true poverty. Once again the liberal cry of doom and gloom is unfounded with facts and reality.

NOT ENOUGH PIGS AT THE TROUGH

Maria Shriver: Don't let food stamp benefits go unused

July 21, 2006

In Santa Cruz, estimates show that 12,000 people neglect to receive more than $14 million in benefits — dollars that could be spent at Santa Cruz grocery stores, and would put more money in the pockets of local farmers. So rip this article out and give it to anyone who might qualify for food stamps. This resource is not perfect. We're working to improve it. But let's not wait. Let's make sure all Californians, especially our children, eat better today.

Santa Cruz Sentinel.com

Friday, October 20, 2006

$54 million for food unused

Outreach workers try to increase families helped

By CLAUDIA ROWE

P-I REPORTER

Only half of those eligible for food stamps in King County receive them, according to a national study that places the Seattle metro area near the bottom of the list for participation in the federal program. If all of those who qualified in 2004 received the aid, families in the region would have been able to buy $54 million more in groceries, the study found.

Seattle Post-Intelligencer.com

Food stamps going unused, report says

Almost 189,000 Minnesotans could benefit, and food-stamp usage could bring $172 million a year to the economy, it said.

By Robert Franklin, Star Tribune

Last update: February 19, 2007 – 10:35 PM

Hunger in Minnesota

Nearly 189,000 Minnesotans -- more than 40 percent of those eligible -- don't use the federal food stamps to which they are entitled, according to a report being released today. One in 10 Minnesotans said they or someone in their family went to bed hungry during one month because of a lack of money for food.

Millions of Eligible People Don't Get Food Stamps

Posted on Sep 28, 2005 (modified on Nov 24, 2005)

More than 3 million needy people in big cities could be getting food stamps but don't for a variety of reasons, an anti-hunger group says (see story in CNN). That translates to $2.1 billion in unused food stamps, the Food Research and Action Center said in a report released Wednesday, Sep 28, 2005.

http://millions-of-eligible-people-don-t-g...et-food-stamps/

[whitev70r]

I found the article by Robert Rector, written in 1998, "The Myth of Widespread Poverty", the one that you quoted from Heritage Foundation. And it dawned on me that we come from 2 fundamentally different presuppostions, probably best summarized by the sources that we quote, yours - Heritage Foundation, mine - New Economics Foundation.

Heritage Foundation - Our Mission: Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institute - a think tank - whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.

New Economics Foundation - Mission: NEF is an independent think-and-do tank that inspires and demonstrates real economic well-being. We aim to improve quality of life by promoting innovative solutions that challenge mainstream thinking on economic, environment and social issues. We work in partnership and put people and the planet first.

I think we've put enough information out there for people to make their own conclusions. Doesn't look like you or I will change our positions dramatically. Guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

*****

This just in, from USA Today, Feb 25, 2007: In US, Record Number ar Plunged into Poverty

WASHINGTON (AFP) — The gulf between rich and poor in the United States is yawning wider than ever, and the number of extremely impoverished is at a three-decade high, a report out Saturday found. Based on the latest available U.S. census data from 2005, the McClatchy Newspapers analysis found that almost 16 million Americans live in "deep or severe poverty" defined as a family of four with two children earning less than 9,903 dollars — one half the federal poverty line figure.

For individuals the "deep poverty" threshold was an income under 5,080 dollars a year.

"The McClatchy analysis found that the number of severely poor Americans grew by 26% from 2000 to 2005," the U.S. newspaper chain reported.

"That's 56% faster than the overall poverty population grew in the same period," it noted.

The surge in poverty comes alongside an unusual economic expansion.

Edited February 25, 2007 by whitev70r