Monday, January 21, 2013




A questions is asked om the "Woodrow Guthrie" Facebook page,"Does the universe really exist"?
Of course the question is as profound as it is meaningless, as the universe can only exist, and exists to the point that your mind can make sense of it, rest of it is useless. A fish in the ocean has no more awareness of it (far as we know) than say a deer in the woods, and a person in the desert and without education has no more comprehension of it than a high school dropout driving his truck on a freeway cross country it is just something out there, with no relation, meaning, use or purpose, "I see you, but it is as if you do not exist".

Yet we go through life, knowing only what someone told us, and that is all we know, that is how things are, they always just are, that way, that is it. "It is complicated" is not just a relationship status on Facebook, it is life and it's relationships to reality.
Something, a thing only exists if one can find some utility for it. Do we really care that there are over 7 billion people on this earth, does it make any difference to you, how? Can you even comprehend the concept, relate to it, we don't even know or care who lives five doors down, next door. It does not really matter, unless, until, it matters! All the rest is talk, useless, to make feel smart or to make us feel good about our self.
Most of us refuse to believe there are others, just like us, somewhere out there, we refuse to believe there are planets like ours, millions of them, ten of them, may be? To really believe there is a "UNIVERSE" out there we must accept that possibility.
To "understand" that there are 7 billion others on this earth, we must accept that our lives, our futures even our wealth and our freedoms are codependent. Or it does not really matter if the universe does or does not exist.

Of course there never need be a conspiracy per se,  but things do turn out the way do under the so called law of unintended consequences, such is the case with the so called War on Poverty,
when I was writing the article I knew that is how things were going, the poor had become a useful goat in the government plan, helping the poor had become a necessity not because it was a good way to help the poor, it was because the poor became a useful source of jobs and the reason for numerous  other endeavors and yes profits.

Long time ago there was a (Communist) scheme to take the children of the poor and raise them to be used in slave labor and other menial jobs and industries as needed, of course the "free world" could not approve and accept any such as that. My friend "Ryan" took an exception to my mention that we were imprisoning poor for profits, then the story broke about "

Putting Kids In Jail For Profit

so it goes, I do not argue to win points, I just try to make a point.

Going back to my article about War on Poverty  and my suggestion that we pay females a stipend, I quote here from the article in case you did not read the whole thing, "We should offer every female child over say 12 a stipend of a reasonable amount, say $400 per month till she has a baby at which time the stipend stops. That will take away the incentive to have child for benefits, tell guys they can not knock up a girl and use her money, stop parents from aborting female fetuses, reduce abortions in general, reduce poverty and unemployment, improve education of girls, but who cares, I presented the idea five or six years ago. It could also be used in the poorer nations where feasible."

 Of course I know that the idea is  radical and offensive, so I was ready to be slammed, so lets go back to the idea that the government takes over the kids and raises them for the a fore mentioned free labor, offensive again?  But let's look at it again, the government does not take over the kid and raise it but it pays the mother to raise the kid, and the kid stays home, the government knows, However, that in the long run the kid will be in trouble any way, law of averages says that more than likely the kid will be a drop out and hoodlum, end up making more babies be in a gang, a single mother, a drug dealer, and thus serve the same purpose as if the government had raised it for free labor. 

The prison industry in the United States: big business or a new form of slavery?

The Pentagon and Slave Labor in U.S. Prisons

Alexandros ''Get money for not having children''. I don't see how that lessens unemployment or how it tells men they can't have sex with a woman. I REALLY don't see how it increases education for girls, and I REALLY don't see how it stops parents from aborting female fetuses, I also don't understand why it decreases abortions. Exactly the opposite would happen, it would increase abortions so that you would get the benefits.

Justin Girls can get scholarships for pretty much any other sport though. And do you even realize how rich a nation would have to be to give money to every woman or girl without kids every month? That's billions of dollars a month for the US. And my first thoughts were the same as Alexandros'
I hope you have read the article, War on Poverty, and the other links I have provided with an open mind, and are willing to read the rest as I try to answer to the objections posted in the two quotes above, start with "tells a man not to have sex with a woman". It is not implied here that the girls will not have sex what I am proposing is that with a substantial stipend at risk,m the girl, or even her parents will make sure that a contraception method is used, a pill or may be even an injection of  depo provera shot so the girl will not get pregnant unintentionally.
"How it increases education for girls", It has been shown that the chance of a girl dropping out of school increases (also lessens that chance of her following higher education) if she gets pregnant and bears a child during school years, same is true for her employment opportunity. "And I really don't see how it stops parents from aborting female fetuses", if applied to the third world countries also as proposed you see that many in those countries abort female fetuses because the female children are considered a burden, if there is the incentive of that extra income being provided for a female child many poor families will keep the child to receive the stipend, it would be worth a try.
"I also don't understand why it decreases abortions. Exactly the opposite would happen, it would increase abortions so that you would get the benefits". Well it actually reduces the risk of abortion by insuring that the female is using birth control in the first place.

And do you even realize how rich a nation would have to be to give money to every woman or girl without kids every month? That's billions of dollars a month for the US. Let's consider what the government is giving out in support to single moms and their kids, add to that the reduction in crime rates, school drop out rates, reduced crime rate, and so on you will easily notice that overall outlays will be drastically reduced, we do not function in a vacuum, all these things are intertwined, study after study shows the relationships among teen pregnancy, crime rates, dropout rates etc.
BTW, did you know that at least in the US many guys get a girl pregnant just so that she can get benefits, and then they come by every month when she gets her "check" to help her spend that money, ever heard the phrase "baby mama"? If the guys knows she will lose her check instead you can rest assured he will make sure she used protection.


No comments: