What's kind of sad is that Watterson drew this, what, a dozen years ago?And, if anything, the corporatist nature of the U.S. political/industrial complex has become even more pronounced since then.
I like to call this; "Bitchslapped By The Invisible Hand, or, If We Did This With Our Pants Off We'd Go To Jail For Rape".
Watterson should have done a coloring book for the Harvard MBA program.
ReplyDeleteWish I was a billionaire, I'd burn that all down replace it with the Calvin & Hobbes School of Economics.
"I want to be subsidized."
ReplyDeleteTo the tune of 3 some billions of dollars from taxpayers, no federal tax bill, and be appointed to the president's job committee.
A cartoon appointment by a cartoon president.
bb
My late Uncle Vincent lamented that the Civil Rights Act of 64 should have been called the "Civil Responsibilities and Rights Act". His logic? You can't have rights without the attendant responsibilities. For me to have "Freedom A", he said, someone else had to bear the responsibility of allowing it. As he eloquently pointed out, if all we ever proclaim tout is "Rights", people will forget that there are "Responsibilities".
ReplyDeletePerhaps we have reached the point where John Q Public actually believes that there are no responsibilities, and corporate America is simply reflecting the public's view?
John Q Public actually believes that there are no responsibilities
ReplyDeleteThere has always been greed, and it's been everywhere, but it is magnified at the top of the economic status ladder. With exceptions ( St. Matthew for the rich and the stoners of Mary the prostitute or Jesus' hometown citizens for those not rich ) Jesus doesn't give much love to the wealthy.
This is anecdotal, from personal experience and quite possibly it is biased, but I find that the morality among the lower class working poor and those just keeping their heads above water is of much higher quality than their betters.
I really do believe the majority of the rich ( say over a million just to set a limit for my point ) are in that situation because they do love money and the power it brings more than they love people.
How else can we explain this action in Congress?
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/29/why-were-fasting/?hp
The budget proposes cuts in the WIC program (which supports women, infants and children), in international food and health aid (18 million people would be immediately cut off from a much-needed food stream, and 4 million would lose access to malaria medicine) and in programs that aid farmers in underdeveloped countries. Food stamps are also being attacked, in the twisted “Welfare Reform 2011” bill. (There are other egregious maneuvers in H.R. 1, but I’m sticking to those related to food.)
These supposedly deficit-reducing cuts — they’d barely make a dent — will quite literally cause more people to starve to death, go to bed hungry or live more miserably than are doing so now. And: The bill would increase defense spending...
"For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me . . ."
Nothing about "I was rich, and you gave me tax breaks".
Christianity says we will be individually judged by our belief in the Creed and what we love, but also collectively, as a nation. I wonder about things like the poor soul(s) who did believe in the towns about which the apostles were told "and if any place will not welcome you or listen to you, leave that place and shake the dust off your feet as a testimony against them.”
A Plutocracy, where love and worship of money and its power overpower all other principle.
For Christian and also non-Christian with decent morality, America just doesn't look that good any more.
bb
bb -
ReplyDeleteI tend to favor Gandhi's comment in these moments:
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
Truer word were never spoken.
I'm sure that there could be a decent Plutocracy, couldn't there?
ReplyDelete:D
bb
I always liked GW's "Faith Based Initiatives" or "Let's let the government decide which "faiths" can put money into which programs." Wonder what ever became of it. Gotta hope the Tea Partiers and Libertarians put it to death.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree, though, that our supposed "Christian" politicians are not the most Christlike. As a matter of fact, Christians in general seem to be so intent on following the Bible that they neglect Christ's example.
Wourm-
ReplyDeleteIIRC, it kinda withered and died on the vine, as the bulk of the non-proselytizing faith based programs are operated by those pesky Catholics, Jews and main-line Protestants, not the politically active, fundie, right wing denominations GWB and Co were hoping to fund.
There was an interesting piece in Christianity Today (IIRC) a few years back that showed how little time, effort and money was put into charitable works by the congregations of the Religious Right. The author, A Methodist seminary prof, was shocked to find that many independent churches spent nothing on charitable works and hundreds of thousands on sophisticated sound and lighting systems for "performance worship" sound stages.
Aviator,
ReplyDeleteI've seen some pretty impressive architectural feats that pose as churches lately. I always figured a church should be simple, plain and humble. Spend less on the building and more on the congregation.
No doubt that drives our fundy legislator's view of Christianity. They only need to be look Christian on the surface. It's what gets the votes.