It is not simply the "wealth of nations" for which a soldier fights? The efficacy of military adventures for dubious "profits" does not figure much in the calculations of Republican hawks (who promote fearful preemption of dubious dangers as somehow "gainful"). No one believes that the "labor theory of value" (pay) for military work/service is only a matter of the "marginal productivity" necessary for development of capital ("wealth"); but somehow, in my opinion, the exploitation/subversion of civilian labor has resulted in "value of exchange" (money) outweighing the "utility" of employment in-itself, in the popular imagination - workers (especially public sector workers) are economic "soldiers" whose service should be respected, I think. The costs of war has been prominent in public discussion, while the costs of retrogression of public services has not.

Not Forgotten...

Why have military suicides per year outstripped deaths from enemy attacks over a decade, I wonder? PTSD, brain injury, multiple-deployment stresses, socio-economic disadvantages, etc. for tens of thousands of military personnel should worry us much more than budgetary constraints - as I am sure these problems worry military staff officers. But, the dismissal of the anguish of private citizens, that is typical of venture capitalism (privateers) is somehow thought acceptable for public-service officers. We must not overlook the sacrifices of both public and private "workers".


Why did Republicans (Ryan) vote against Simpson-Bowles (while the President did use it as the framework for his "balanced approach" plan that Republicans rejected); except for their mindless objection to increased revenues? Our mutual "interest" (betterment) is the very reason for government to which I think "lawless-market" fundamentalists object. I argue that the perpetual renewal of the social compact/trust (American form of governance), negates the individualist attitude to society (simple collectivity) which seems to inform the conservative perspective. When did highways, bridges, schoolhouses, teachers, courts and maintenance work become less "valuable" than tax breaks for the wealthy? Why does no one laugh when Mr. Cantor proclaims that government cannot create jobs - by defrayal for private contracts, lending to small businesses, hiring school teachers, and paying his salary, for instance?


Mortgage derivative speculation and hedging WERE unregulated leveraging excesses that drove the economy to the edge of a cliff, and saying that the government somehow encouraged (rather than did not well restrain) it is no excuse for allowing it. Systemic risk (whether banks or insurance companies) is undeniably dreadful and should be made more transparent and lessened, if possible, I say.

Pursuit of Happiness?...

Is pole dancing an offshoot of rhythmic gymnastics, or merely an excuse for more girls performing in spandex?


Add comment

Login or register to post comments

Latest Headlines

One Iowa Caucus Delegate Comes Down To Coin Toss

The Iowa caucus convener flipped a coin. Bernie Sanders supporters called "heads" and it landed on tails.

Bernie Sanders leads Hillary Clinton by 31 points in N.H.: Poll

Sanders was at 61 percent support in the University of Massachusetts Lowell/7News poll, followed by Mrs. Clinton, at 30 percent

Martin O'Malley suspends presidential campaign after Iowa caucuses

The announcement came after O'Malley barely registered in Iowa against his better-known rivals Clinton and Sanders, failing to meet already low expectations

The Problem of the Establishment

One thing that both parties have in common in this primary season is the fact that there's a sharp divide between "We, the People" populism, and the rich and powerful Washington establishment.

On the Republican side, Donald Trump is leading the race by running on a populist platform based on the fact that he's not beholden to the billionaires or lobbyists, and that he's never been part of the political establishment.