TaN: Why is it that whenever there is an economic or financial crisis, it is always the little guy, the 99%, the downtrodden masses who must make the sacrifice, be the sacrifice (at the altar of consumerism and capitalism), and take the bitter pill – to save the asses of the uber rich, of the 1%, of the capitalist, of the management, of Big Business?
When a company is experiencing financial difficulties or insolvency, why is it that it is always the ones who earn the least are (among) the first ones to get axed – the ones who were never part of the decision-making process that resulted in loss and for the company to be in dire straits? If there should be a (voluntary) wage reduction to save the company, why must the reduction be taken and supported by the lowest earners and seldom by top earners?
Why is it that the big earners – Big Business – rather than the little guy – employees, who have their take-home pay gutted with taxes and all sorts of deductions even before they can lay their hands on it – who enjoy the most tax breaks and incentives? In the Big Bailout, why reward Big Business (the mega banks and the giant financial firms and the sort) who received financial assistance but even consideration – let alone a trickle of chump change – was given to the beleaguered masses (who were foreclosed mercilessly and unceremoniously).
It is not as if the crisis was caused by the lowly 99% that they should be made responsible or accountable. In the first place, they were never consulted, never part of the decision-making process, never participated in any way in the running of the company. So, how, all of a sudden, did the 99% become the culprit, the scapegoat in the blame game and must take the consequences of which they had not even the smidgeon of participation in bringing about.
Finally, for those Too Big To Fail, why should the ones responsible be rewarded for their incompetence, their blunder, their stupidity and the ones Too Small To Matter be the ones to be left out in the cold. Good work should always be rewarded and stupidity punished – and not vice versa.
TaN: Restrictive, covert, sensitive, and otherwise secretive information that have significant – and especially negative – impact on public safety and the general welfare of the population should never be tolerated. It is a blatant violation (or deprivation) of the people’s right to information – regardless of the people concerned (i.e., irrespective of race, of faith, of political affiliation, of gender, of any defining and distinguishing quality).
It is common practice – especially by government – to keep essential and relevant information from the public, even if the public has every right to it. It exhibits arrogance and an attitude of superiority (that is deemed unreproachable by them) and constitutes an imposition of another’s will on us – somewhat akin to the concept of White Man’s Burden, that others take it upon themselves to decide what is best for the rest, what the rest are entitled to know, what the rest can grasp or comprehend or handle, for their own good.
Another case in point is the recently concluded – but far from over – defeat of Proposition 37 in California, which involves the mandatory labeling of or on all products containing GMOs (genetically modified organisms). As history shows, Proposition 37 was defeated so consumers will still be kept in the dark as to whether the food items they purchase (and will be eating) contain GMO or not.
Anti-labeling advocates – Big Food Inc – argue that, since there “no difference” between GMO and non-GMO food, there is no need for labeling. But, if there is no difference, why the refusal to labeling? More importantly, if there is no difference, why the patent? How can you tell the difference between GMO and non-GMO? There must be something that is not being told the public – something the public should not know. Trade secret or not, consumers are entitled to know, regardless of how trivial it may be. The consumer’s right to information must be respected and let the consumer decide whether GMO matters or not.
Even God gives us free will and permits us to choose (between good and evil) and provides us with all the information to make an informed choice (through the Holy Scriptures). Who are you to deprive us of the same, to decide for us, to determine what is best for us and what we can pr should and cannot or should not know?