First of all, let me say that I've never given two shits about college sports, except perhaps to note that their influence on campuses often seems unhealthily oversized. That said, having spent about a decade in Pennsylvania, I have a passing familiarity with Joe Paterno's legendary stature - and I agree that this is a sad end to his remarkable tenure at Penn State. I understand the feeling that such a career should not be ending on this note, especially given that he did not commit the actual crimes that are being alleged. If, however, the facts comport with the allegations, I would argue that Paterno and any of his colleagues that failed in similar ways are, in a sense, more guilty than Sandusky.
Pedophilia is a mental illness. The revulsion we all feel at the thought of it is a sign that we are mentally healthy (at least with regards to pedophilia). Sexual attraction to prepubescent children is a devastating sickness of the mind. If a thirty year old has consensual sex with a fifteen year old, they are guilty of inappropriately and illegally breaking social norms, but they are not guilty of a crime against nature. Our society has postponed sexual activity beyond the point at which nature makes the body ready for it. The thirty year old has made a very bad choice and should be punished accordingly. The pedophile, on the other hand, is deranged by an attraction to bodies that have not reached sexual maturity. While the consequences are profoundly more tragic, the attraction itself is akin to, say, a sexual attraction to animals. It is unnatural and deviant. It could only exist in a brain that is not wired properly.
All of this confirmed by a simple thought experiment: Honestly rate your level of physical attraction to, let's say Taylor Lautner circa 2008 (when he emerged in the Twilight movies at the age of 16) or Taylor Swift circa 2006 (when she broke out at the age of 16). Your rating has nothing to do with whether or not you would actually engage in sexual activity with anyone this age. Now - attempt for three seconds to consider your level of sexual attraction to a ten year old. If you are sane and mentally stable, you won't even be able to do it. There is no attraction. There is negative attraction. There is only the desire to protect and care for. This establishes the vast psychological chasm that exists between normal people and pedophiles.
Jerry Sandusky is an alleged pedophile. To that end, he is only responsible for his actions to the same extent that a schizophrenic is. This doesn't mean that we can't or shouldn't hold him accountable. To be sure, he needs to be locked away from society for a good long time. (I would argue that he should be in a mental facility, but that is another discussion.) Anyone of sound mind who is aware of his actions is, I think, more responsible for subsequent actions. If your friend tells you that he is going to kill someone, you have a responsibility to report him. If you don't and if he actually kills someone, you bear at least as much responsibility as he does. Those who failed to ensure that Jerry Sandusky was not allowed to rape children after they knew he had done so in the past bear at least as much responsibility as he does.
"Why couldn't they just let him finish out his career with dignity?" That is a ridiculous question. What dignity? Dignity left the building when Sandusky was allowed back in after someone knew what he had done. If a child has been raped in your locker room shower, you don't sleep until you have given a statement to the police - let alone go about coaching football games with the guy.
Friday, November 11, 2011
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Them That's Got Shall Get
Conservatives seem to genuinely believe that liberals are profoundly hostile toward the rich and want nothing more than to tear them down, take their money, and become rich people themselves. As far as they are concerned, this is the sole motivator and aim of liberal "redistributionist policies" and of the Occupy Wall Street movement in particular. On the surface, this interpretation makes some kind of sense. People who have less are protesting against people who have more. Liberal politicians are advocating policies that would take something from those who have more and spend on everyone, including those who have less. Conservatives of all socioeconomic stripes buy into this notion. I would like to explain why they are wrong and what this tells us about the fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives.
I grew up in a blue collar household. My family was in the heating and air conditioning business. My dad was a union sheet metal worker. We never had a lot of money, but we had the basics required to live a peaceful, middle-class existence: a mortgage in the suburbs, health care, vacation pay (though we couldn't really afford vacations very often), sick pay (though my dad didn't call in sick for over 20 years), and the promise of a retirement pension. My siblings and I were able to attend private Catholic schools (they were abundant and very affordable in the midwest). In other words, while it might not always have felt like it, we were living the American Dream. Not the elusive, anecdotal version where you pull yourself up from poverty by the bootstraps and become a millionaire, but the one where you agree to work hard for 40-60 hours each week in exchange for the opportunity to raise a family and enjoy life a bit.
I'm quite sure that my parents hoped that my siblings and I might live out that other American Dream - the millionaire version. After all, don't all parents hope their children will surpass their own level of success and provide for them in their old age? But I never really had such aspirations. I'm not sure why, but I think it's because the middle class seemed like such a good deal to me that I just didn't feel the need to yearn for more. It's important to note that that doesn't mean I haven't been willing to work every bit as hard as someone who yearns for great wealth - only that great wealth has not been the inspiration for that work.
So wealth has never been a motivating force in my life, but I do not for a moment begrudge others their own wealth. Without the people at the top, there would be no middle for me to belong to. But the people at the top have forgotten the corollary: Without the people in the middle, there can be no top for them to belong to. It is not their wealth that is a problem. It is the disparity that has been growing for thirty years. A rising tide must lift all boats in order for the social contract to work. If you don't think the growing disparity is a problem, then you must answer these questions: How wide would you allow that gap to grow? Practically speaking, isn't there going to come a point at which the people at the bottom can no longer afford to increase the wealth of the people at the top? And hasn't our monarchical past taught us that concentrated power and wealth will never stand? Isn't that why we came here? They may not call themselves Kings and Queens any longer, but they serve the same function.
But I digress. Allow me to get back on track by proposing the following schema for classifying people on a psycho-financial basis:
a) People who are motivated by a desire for wealth and have it.
b) People who are not motivated by a desire for wealth but have it.
c) People who are motivated by a desire for wealth but do not have it.
d) People who are not motivated by a desire for wealth and do not have it.
This simple schema would explain a few vexing phenomena. Michael Moore, for example, can't get through an interview without someone asking how he can be such a vociferous critic of a system that has benefited him so greatly. The answer is simple - he is a Type B individual. It would be hard to make the case that Michael Moore got into documentary filmmaking with the goal of becoming extraordinarily wealthy - especially when his films have always been brutal attacks on the moneyed elite. He became rich because his own passions resonated with the public - not because he set out to become rich.
Many successful people fall into this category. Consider doctors - good and bad ones alike. Some got into medicine out of a genuine interest in medical science or a passionate desire to heal. Others got into the field because doctors make really good money. I think you would find that conservative doctors fall into the latter group. You are probably more likely to find them on the golf course than volunteering for Doctors Without Borders. Again, either type might turn out to be a brilliant or incompetent physician based on many other factors. The motivation is only important within this schema.
Now let's consider folks like Joe the Plumber. These are the people Thomas Frank wrote about in What's the Matter With Kansas? They present a conundrum in that they appear to be advocating against their own self interests with their votes and voices. I would suggest that these are Type C people. They hope(d) or plan(ned) to be rich one day and are thereby naturally sympathetic to those who have achieved the goal that motivates their own existences, even if their own progress toward that goal is not going as well as they'd hoped.
Type A individuals are easy to spot. Watch the new film Margin Call for a magnificent case study of them. The movie presents a meticulously layered portrayal of the various types of people who fall into this category. They are not simply the gross caricatures of the wholly evil suits that you might expect. They include: Peter (Zachary Quinto), the brilliant and earnest former rocket scientist who stumbles upon the data that is about to bring the economy crashing down in 2008; Eric (Stanley Tucci), the former bridge builder who is laid off unceremoniously at the beginning of the film after 20 years; Sam (Kevin Spacey), the fast talking, fast dealing, show-me-the-money boss who first appalls us when he is more devastated by his dying dog than by the massive number of human beings he just laid off, but later displays the dying remnants of his conscience and humanity but is ultimately unable to redeem himself; John Tuld (Jeremy Irons), the financial automaton (clearly modeled on Dick Fuld), whose only concern in the world is the survival and enrichment of himself and his firm at any cost.
These men could not be more different from each other in their biographical histories and personality types. What they have in common is that each of them chose wealth over everything else, as evidenced by their career choices. They left behind families, careers, passions, and principles to push money around, much of it into their own pockets. The longer they do it, the colder they grow to the world around them. They more money they get their hands on, the less important everything else becomes. You can argue that these are merely fictional characters, but you cannot argue that anyone goes into the money business out of any personal passion other than a passion for money. In fact, you will fail in the financial sector if you are not motivated by the desire to make massive amounts of money. I am not here to make the case that this is or is not a valid passion - I am simply trying to establish that there is a difference between people with that passion and people without it.
Moving on. I suspect that most of us fall into Category D. Sure, maybe we buy a lottery ticket now and again or speculate about what we would do with a million dollars, but our lives are motivated primarily by the desire to live a fulfilling life. Money is a means to an end for us, not the end itself. If we see improvement in our personal wealth, it is generally modest and allows us to pay off a little debt, make a home improvement, save it for a rainy day, or treat ourselves to something nice - like a new television. Or a sweater. So for us, a discussion about the distinction between making, say one million dollars and two million dollars is not something we can really engage in with any degree of seriousness. Whether Albert Pujols will sign a $200 or $300 million dollar contract is sort of an absurd abstraction to us. That would be 4,000 - 6,000 years at my current household income, just to give you some perspective. (Plus, he probably gets health and dental benefits for the whole family. I pay $400/month for my high deductible plan and I spent about $1600 on dental work last month.)
This brings us full circle to the question of disparity. I don't know anyone who really gives a rat's ass how much money rich people make. God speed to them and their money. But that attitude was formed in an environment in which the better off they were, the better off we all were - even if just a tiny, little, eensy-teensy bit. So unless you can explain how this gap could possibly grow unchecked, you have stumbled upon the fundamental complaint of the Occupy movement. And I mean you'd have to explain it in practical, economic terms. You can't just say "It's their money, they earned it, we shouldn't spread the wealth around, stop begging for handouts," etc. You have to explain the difference between the current imbalance and the sort of plutocracy our system was supposed to be an improvement on. You also have to explain why, if business is so oppressed by economy killing regulations and taxes, are the rich still getting richer? That argument might have some credibility if all sectors were suffering equally, but they are not. The folks at the top are still getting wealthier. The rest of us are still out here trying to pull our weight - but the rewards are being funneled to the top.
I would like to be a conservative. I would like to live in a world in which unions are not necessary because employers simply do right by their employees. I would like to live in a world in which we don't need to raise taxes on millionaires because millionaires are fairly distributing the wealth down through the ranks of their companies. Unfortunately, the system has run amok and the guys at the top have grown too disconnected from the real world that the majority of us live in. They've distorted the system so that it is making less and less sense for the rest of us to participate in it. Whereas the Tea Party has an abstract argument about the sustainability of our national debt in the long term, OWS is about something tangible. You can malign the OWS movement all you want for its sloppiness, but is simply a natural, populist reaction to the reality. There is no reason to expect it to be a highly refined movement. It is the stuff of revolutions, not of tidy political calculation.
So wealth has never been a motivating force in my life, but I do not for a moment begrudge others their own wealth. Without the people at the top, there would be no middle for me to belong to. But the people at the top have forgotten the corollary: Without the people in the middle, there can be no top for them to belong to. It is not their wealth that is a problem. It is the disparity that has been growing for thirty years. A rising tide must lift all boats in order for the social contract to work. If you don't think the growing disparity is a problem, then you must answer these questions: How wide would you allow that gap to grow? Practically speaking, isn't there going to come a point at which the people at the bottom can no longer afford to increase the wealth of the people at the top? And hasn't our monarchical past taught us that concentrated power and wealth will never stand? Isn't that why we came here? They may not call themselves Kings and Queens any longer, but they serve the same function.
But I digress. Allow me to get back on track by proposing the following schema for classifying people on a psycho-financial basis:
a) People who are motivated by a desire for wealth and have it.
b) People who are not motivated by a desire for wealth but have it.
c) People who are motivated by a desire for wealth but do not have it.
d) People who are not motivated by a desire for wealth and do not have it.
This simple schema would explain a few vexing phenomena. Michael Moore, for example, can't get through an interview without someone asking how he can be such a vociferous critic of a system that has benefited him so greatly. The answer is simple - he is a Type B individual. It would be hard to make the case that Michael Moore got into documentary filmmaking with the goal of becoming extraordinarily wealthy - especially when his films have always been brutal attacks on the moneyed elite. He became rich because his own passions resonated with the public - not because he set out to become rich.
Many successful people fall into this category. Consider doctors - good and bad ones alike. Some got into medicine out of a genuine interest in medical science or a passionate desire to heal. Others got into the field because doctors make really good money. I think you would find that conservative doctors fall into the latter group. You are probably more likely to find them on the golf course than volunteering for Doctors Without Borders. Again, either type might turn out to be a brilliant or incompetent physician based on many other factors. The motivation is only important within this schema.
Now let's consider folks like Joe the Plumber. These are the people Thomas Frank wrote about in What's the Matter With Kansas? They present a conundrum in that they appear to be advocating against their own self interests with their votes and voices. I would suggest that these are Type C people. They hope(d) or plan(ned) to be rich one day and are thereby naturally sympathetic to those who have achieved the goal that motivates their own existences, even if their own progress toward that goal is not going as well as they'd hoped.
Type A individuals are easy to spot. Watch the new film Margin Call for a magnificent case study of them. The movie presents a meticulously layered portrayal of the various types of people who fall into this category. They are not simply the gross caricatures of the wholly evil suits that you might expect. They include: Peter (Zachary Quinto), the brilliant and earnest former rocket scientist who stumbles upon the data that is about to bring the economy crashing down in 2008; Eric (Stanley Tucci), the former bridge builder who is laid off unceremoniously at the beginning of the film after 20 years; Sam (Kevin Spacey), the fast talking, fast dealing, show-me-the-money boss who first appalls us when he is more devastated by his dying dog than by the massive number of human beings he just laid off, but later displays the dying remnants of his conscience and humanity but is ultimately unable to redeem himself; John Tuld (Jeremy Irons), the financial automaton (clearly modeled on Dick Fuld), whose only concern in the world is the survival and enrichment of himself and his firm at any cost.
These men could not be more different from each other in their biographical histories and personality types. What they have in common is that each of them chose wealth over everything else, as evidenced by their career choices. They left behind families, careers, passions, and principles to push money around, much of it into their own pockets. The longer they do it, the colder they grow to the world around them. They more money they get their hands on, the less important everything else becomes. You can argue that these are merely fictional characters, but you cannot argue that anyone goes into the money business out of any personal passion other than a passion for money. In fact, you will fail in the financial sector if you are not motivated by the desire to make massive amounts of money. I am not here to make the case that this is or is not a valid passion - I am simply trying to establish that there is a difference between people with that passion and people without it.
Moving on. I suspect that most of us fall into Category D. Sure, maybe we buy a lottery ticket now and again or speculate about what we would do with a million dollars, but our lives are motivated primarily by the desire to live a fulfilling life. Money is a means to an end for us, not the end itself. If we see improvement in our personal wealth, it is generally modest and allows us to pay off a little debt, make a home improvement, save it for a rainy day, or treat ourselves to something nice - like a new television. Or a sweater. So for us, a discussion about the distinction between making, say one million dollars and two million dollars is not something we can really engage in with any degree of seriousness. Whether Albert Pujols will sign a $200 or $300 million dollar contract is sort of an absurd abstraction to us. That would be 4,000 - 6,000 years at my current household income, just to give you some perspective. (Plus, he probably gets health and dental benefits for the whole family. I pay $400/month for my high deductible plan and I spent about $1600 on dental work last month.)
This brings us full circle to the question of disparity. I don't know anyone who really gives a rat's ass how much money rich people make. God speed to them and their money. But that attitude was formed in an environment in which the better off they were, the better off we all were - even if just a tiny, little, eensy-teensy bit. So unless you can explain how this gap could possibly grow unchecked, you have stumbled upon the fundamental complaint of the Occupy movement. And I mean you'd have to explain it in practical, economic terms. You can't just say "It's their money, they earned it, we shouldn't spread the wealth around, stop begging for handouts," etc. You have to explain the difference between the current imbalance and the sort of plutocracy our system was supposed to be an improvement on. You also have to explain why, if business is so oppressed by economy killing regulations and taxes, are the rich still getting richer? That argument might have some credibility if all sectors were suffering equally, but they are not. The folks at the top are still getting wealthier. The rest of us are still out here trying to pull our weight - but the rewards are being funneled to the top.
I would like to be a conservative. I would like to live in a world in which unions are not necessary because employers simply do right by their employees. I would like to live in a world in which we don't need to raise taxes on millionaires because millionaires are fairly distributing the wealth down through the ranks of their companies. Unfortunately, the system has run amok and the guys at the top have grown too disconnected from the real world that the majority of us live in. They've distorted the system so that it is making less and less sense for the rest of us to participate in it. Whereas the Tea Party has an abstract argument about the sustainability of our national debt in the long term, OWS is about something tangible. You can malign the OWS movement all you want for its sloppiness, but is simply a natural, populist reaction to the reality. There is no reason to expect it to be a highly refined movement. It is the stuff of revolutions, not of tidy political calculation.
Friday, October 14, 2011
Sunday, October 9, 2011
We Are All Polar Bears Now
What do polar bears have in common with the 99%?
In my mid-life attempt to complete my BA, I find myself required to take Geography 100. While I would never have chosen the class myself, I must admit that I am finding it pretty damn interesting. It's nice to fill in the blanks that have long existed in my vague knowledge about some of these basic concepts. As a non-scientist, I have always held the field and the process in high esteem without feeling compelled to understand it at all. That sort of distance from the actual science has, perhaps, prevented me from realizing just how much is now known about...well, so many things.
For example, I have never questioned the science behind climate change. I have simply accepted the consensus of those who have devoted their lives to studying such things. A week ago, I couldn't have told you any more about climate change than the fact that temperatures are rising and ice caps are melting. I might even have been marginally susceptible to mild skepticism about the overall importance of rising temperatures in the grand scheme of things.
Having just grazed the surface of geographic science - looking at the basics of how Earth functions as a system - it has already become amazingly simple and clear to me, in a way that it was not before, that we are overloading that system, draining its resources, and imperiling the future of all living things on the planet. Paradoxically, it turns out to be much less complicated than I could have imagined before I knew anything about it.
We have managed to construct a conception of our place in the universe that goes something like this:
Roughly half of the Arctic sea ice has melted since 1970, with the losses increasing exponentially in more recent years. It is estimated that the remaining 23,000 polar bears will see their numbers dwindle by two-thirds by around 2050. Now those polar bears don't know or care anything about climate change. They don't know why they're nearly extinct. They don't know or care that a considerable number of humans refuse to accept the science supporting the notion that we are contributing to climate change. They don't know or care whether these people are motivated by politics, religion, greed, or all of the above. All they know is that the ice is disappearing from beneath them. Actually, they don't even know that...until they find themselves drowning in the middle of the too-warm Arctic ocean.
Our economic oppression has been accomplished and perpetuated using the same framework. They have successfully connected intellectualism to liberalism. (All liberals are high-minded, ivy-league snobs; all conservatives are...what?) They have elevated Ayn Rand to the status of Prophet, lending more credence to her founding principles than they ever have to those of Jesus Christ. Collectivism has been found guilty by association with its worst adherents and summarily executed in the square of public opinion.
We, as reasonable people, have been trained to feel that the use of words like "tyranny" and "oligarchy" and "fascism" is extreme and not applicable to anything that might occur in this great nation of ours. (Note that while socialistic ideas continue to have success in various sectors of economies all over the world, fascism has no corresponding positive associations. So when they call us "socialists," we are offended not at the term itself, but at their ignorance of what the word means and they ways in which they are the daily beneficiaries of socialistic systems. Once again, knowledge be damned. They merely want to tie us to Stalin - in the same way we could connect all Christians to Pope Innocent III.) We have been trained to behave. Revolt is for less civilized peoples. After all, we have iPods and plasma TVs. Why would we ever revolt?
Because the ice is melting out from under us. We were raised to believe that we could stay on solid ground if we played by the rules and worked hard. We grew up in a world in which a person willing to work 40+ hours a week could buy a home, start a family, provide for that family, take a vacation now and then, and retire before death. Pretty basic stuff for the "greatest nation in the history of the world," right? Sure, if you wanted to be a millionaire, you could try to go out and have a great idea and work day and night and build an empire - but ambition of that sort was not required by any means. Ambition is not the same as work ethic. I, for one, have never wanted power or great wealth. I grew up in a blue collar household and as a result I developed very modest expectations and desires. I just want to do something well, contribute my piece to society, and enjoy my family. That's it. Well, that's no longer enough.
The people with ambition decided that their ambition entitled them to a larger and larger piece of the pie. If us little folks can't be bothered to work as hard as them, then screw us. If we don't like it, we can get off our lazy asses and become investment bankers or invent something amazing, like Pillow Pets. Until then, we should take what scraps they're willing to provide in the form of jobs. That's right...they're the "job creators." They seem to think that they are bestowing a great gift by creating these precious jobs. What happened to the notion that employees are the most valuable commodity a company has? How exactly are the job creators going to get filthy fucking rich if we don't honor them with our time and service? If they're doing us such a favor, they should be able to get along without us, right? And who is going to buy their shit? If we don't allow them to pay us for our labor, where are we going to get the money to buy they stuff they're paying us to make?
They need us badly, but they've convinced us that it's the other way around - and they're taking a huge gamble. They're betting that if they pull the rug out just far enough - if they melt just enough ice - we'll all scramble to fit into the tiny space that's left. And we'll be grateful for it. Well maybe we won't. It's beginning to look like our only option is to get vicious on the bastards.
In my mid-life attempt to complete my BA, I find myself required to take Geography 100. While I would never have chosen the class myself, I must admit that I am finding it pretty damn interesting. It's nice to fill in the blanks that have long existed in my vague knowledge about some of these basic concepts. As a non-scientist, I have always held the field and the process in high esteem without feeling compelled to understand it at all. That sort of distance from the actual science has, perhaps, prevented me from realizing just how much is now known about...well, so many things.
For example, I have never questioned the science behind climate change. I have simply accepted the consensus of those who have devoted their lives to studying such things. A week ago, I couldn't have told you any more about climate change than the fact that temperatures are rising and ice caps are melting. I might even have been marginally susceptible to mild skepticism about the overall importance of rising temperatures in the grand scheme of things.
Having just grazed the surface of geographic science - looking at the basics of how Earth functions as a system - it has already become amazingly simple and clear to me, in a way that it was not before, that we are overloading that system, draining its resources, and imperiling the future of all living things on the planet. Paradoxically, it turns out to be much less complicated than I could have imagined before I knew anything about it.
We have managed to construct a conception of our place in the universe that goes something like this:
- The universe, of which Earth is a part, is incomprehensibly immense.
- We are tiny.
- Our puny little species couldn't possibly do any real damage to the wider world around us.
The fatal flaw in that schema is the distinction between our puny little species and Earth. Practically speaking, we are quite literally one with the earth. We, along with all living things, are trapped together in an infinitesimally small bubble - a snow globe, in which the glass represents the incredibly thin layer of atmosphere within which all life is possible. That layer extends upward from sea level a mere 480 kilometers. Just to give you an idea of how little space that actually is, the distance through the center of Earth at its widest point (the equator) is 12,756 kilometers.
Here's what I never realized: Nothing gets into the bubble and nothing leaves the bubble, resource-wise. The only thing that enters the bubble is solar radiation. Yes, we project things out into space and many of them return, but this represents a statistically insignificant variation from the general rule. For all intents and purposes, we may as well have a glass barrier surrounding us. When you think about things this way, you begin to see that we are not puny at all, as far as Earth is concerned. We may be insignificant. It may not matter whether we live or die and kill every other living thing in the process. Either way, it simply cannot be denied that we are having a major impact on the behavior of matter inside this bubble of ours.
Believe it or not, this piece is not about the environment. Well...it is and it isn't. Bear with me here as I attempt to pivot to the economy and the Occupy Wall Street movement. First, back to the environment for a moment. Look at this:
 |
| Source: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/indicators/slideshow.html? |
This is how we, the 99%, feel at the moment. The relentless pursuit of profit by the corporate sector is the energy that is overheating our financial atmosphere. The solid ground beneath our feet is vanishing, leaving us adrift in an ocean of uncertainty and dimming hope for the future. It doesn't much matter to us whether some deny this reality. The facts and figures speak for themselves: Rising corporate profits and increasing executive compensation for them; stagnating wages, rising unemployment, and increasing costs-of living for us.
Both of these forms of denial are promulgated as conservative orthodoxy. Actual truth is no competition for their divine truth. If they can feel it, it is so. Reality be damned. This is the chief tactic of the new oligarchy. Just look at how successfully these two disparate issues have been manipulated in precisely the same way:
- Appeal to the viscera.
- Vilify science and intellectualism.
- Deify individualism.
- Demonize collectivism.
- Connect faith with finance.
Once those principles have been instilled in the portion of the populace that is susceptible to them, the world is your oyster. You have established a visceral connection to your audience that does not require rationality. You have made them skeptical of anyone who is pompous enough to have become an expert in their field (while remaining free to profit from those people when it is convenient). You have trained them to decline a benefit for themselves in order to prevent others from receiving a benefit. Finally, you have secularized the prosperity gospel by harnessing faith in the service of justifying selfishness and greed.
Take the polar bears, for example. Climate change deniers have followed these directions carefully and with great success. They viscerally hook their audience with contempt for the sort of hippie intellectuals who think they're smarter than everyone else, disseminating arbitrary factoids that look damn convincing to a layperson but have no scientific credibility when considered in context (if they're even factual to begin with). They incite righteous indigation of the "I'll-be-damned-if-anyone's-gonna-tell-me-what-kind-of-car-I-can-drive"sort, riling up the faux-libertarian that lurks within, as if personal liberty has anything to do with the question of whether or not we are warming the climate. They rally the troops against any notion that we, as individuals, have any responsibility to anyone or anything other than ourselves. Then, wire all of that into their faith system. Sell it like their pastors sell God. Make them feel it deep down in the cockles, where they are unable to think about it.
Our economic oppression has been accomplished and perpetuated using the same framework. They have successfully connected intellectualism to liberalism. (All liberals are high-minded, ivy-league snobs; all conservatives are...what?) They have elevated Ayn Rand to the status of Prophet, lending more credence to her founding principles than they ever have to those of Jesus Christ. Collectivism has been found guilty by association with its worst adherents and summarily executed in the square of public opinion.
We, as reasonable people, have been trained to feel that the use of words like "tyranny" and "oligarchy" and "fascism" is extreme and not applicable to anything that might occur in this great nation of ours. (Note that while socialistic ideas continue to have success in various sectors of economies all over the world, fascism has no corresponding positive associations. So when they call us "socialists," we are offended not at the term itself, but at their ignorance of what the word means and they ways in which they are the daily beneficiaries of socialistic systems. Once again, knowledge be damned. They merely want to tie us to Stalin - in the same way we could connect all Christians to Pope Innocent III.) We have been trained to behave. Revolt is for less civilized peoples. After all, we have iPods and plasma TVs. Why would we ever revolt?
Because the ice is melting out from under us. We were raised to believe that we could stay on solid ground if we played by the rules and worked hard. We grew up in a world in which a person willing to work 40+ hours a week could buy a home, start a family, provide for that family, take a vacation now and then, and retire before death. Pretty basic stuff for the "greatest nation in the history of the world," right? Sure, if you wanted to be a millionaire, you could try to go out and have a great idea and work day and night and build an empire - but ambition of that sort was not required by any means. Ambition is not the same as work ethic. I, for one, have never wanted power or great wealth. I grew up in a blue collar household and as a result I developed very modest expectations and desires. I just want to do something well, contribute my piece to society, and enjoy my family. That's it. Well, that's no longer enough.
The people with ambition decided that their ambition entitled them to a larger and larger piece of the pie. If us little folks can't be bothered to work as hard as them, then screw us. If we don't like it, we can get off our lazy asses and become investment bankers or invent something amazing, like Pillow Pets. Until then, we should take what scraps they're willing to provide in the form of jobs. That's right...they're the "job creators." They seem to think that they are bestowing a great gift by creating these precious jobs. What happened to the notion that employees are the most valuable commodity a company has? How exactly are the job creators going to get filthy fucking rich if we don't honor them with our time and service? If they're doing us such a favor, they should be able to get along without us, right? And who is going to buy their shit? If we don't allow them to pay us for our labor, where are we going to get the money to buy they stuff they're paying us to make?
They need us badly, but they've convinced us that it's the other way around - and they're taking a huge gamble. They're betting that if they pull the rug out just far enough - if they melt just enough ice - we'll all scramble to fit into the tiny space that's left. And we'll be grateful for it. Well maybe we won't. It's beginning to look like our only option is to get vicious on the bastards.
 |
| Source: http://lostpedia.wikia.com/wiki/Animals/Theories |
Monday, September 26, 2011
Welfare For The Wealthy
My wife works in an upscale restaurant these days. We are fortunate that Washington does not allow the draconian wage of $2.13/hour established by federal law. $8/hour, while certainly not generous, makes it easier to endure a slow shift and the miserliness of some patrons. Rich patrons, in particular. She recently had the pleasure of serving, on two different occasions, members of a family that owns a large, well-known, national winery. At the end of one meal, the patriarch pulled her aside and slipped her what he clearly thought was a very generous tip. With a wink and a big-spender smile, he discreetly handed her $20 on his $110 check. Just to be clear, that's 18%. That's not a rude tip, by any means, but it certainly isn't worthy of any ostentatiousness.
While the tipping behaviors of the wealthy are worthy of much discussion, I have a different point to make. The same gentleman I mentioned above was also treated to complimentary drinks, appetizers, and desserts by the owner of the restaurant. This is customary. A nice couple sitting across the room noticed that night. They were "nobodies" for whom this was probably their big splurge of the month. They were sad to have had their own insignificance affirmed by the comparative treatment of the elite. The still tipped my wife 20%.
Wealth and status are rewarded with free stuff everywhere they go. The more you have, the more you get. This is the great, hidden welfare doled out to the wealthy. Or, if you prefer, it is a tax on the rest of us, as our hard-earned dollars are redistributed upward in the form of complimentary swag. Consider the well-known Oscar bags tucked under the seats of the rich and famous each year. That's just the most conspicuous example. Even when they're not getting shit for free, they're paying less for it. Your mortgage broker is charging you a higher rate of interest so they can charge the rich less.
I don't point this out because I think this petty little practice should or will stop. I simply want to call bullshit on the notion that wealth is every truly redistributed downward. It isn't. Corporate welfare - in the form of subsidies, tax breaks, and bailouts - has long dwarfed social welfare. The taxes of the middle class have built the infrastructure that has made commerce possible for the "job creators." The small retirement investments of regular people have made it possible for millionaires to make money with money.
Enough pretending that the unwealthy are a drain on wealthy. They have what they have because of us and only because of us.
While the tipping behaviors of the wealthy are worthy of much discussion, I have a different point to make. The same gentleman I mentioned above was also treated to complimentary drinks, appetizers, and desserts by the owner of the restaurant. This is customary. A nice couple sitting across the room noticed that night. They were "nobodies" for whom this was probably their big splurge of the month. They were sad to have had their own insignificance affirmed by the comparative treatment of the elite. The still tipped my wife 20%.
Wealth and status are rewarded with free stuff everywhere they go. The more you have, the more you get. This is the great, hidden welfare doled out to the wealthy. Or, if you prefer, it is a tax on the rest of us, as our hard-earned dollars are redistributed upward in the form of complimentary swag. Consider the well-known Oscar bags tucked under the seats of the rich and famous each year. That's just the most conspicuous example. Even when they're not getting shit for free, they're paying less for it. Your mortgage broker is charging you a higher rate of interest so they can charge the rich less.
I don't point this out because I think this petty little practice should or will stop. I simply want to call bullshit on the notion that wealth is every truly redistributed downward. It isn't. Corporate welfare - in the form of subsidies, tax breaks, and bailouts - has long dwarfed social welfare. The taxes of the middle class have built the infrastructure that has made commerce possible for the "job creators." The small retirement investments of regular people have made it possible for millionaires to make money with money.
Enough pretending that the unwealthy are a drain on wealthy. They have what they have because of us and only because of us.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Thoughts on the Execution of Troy Davis
The following two observations have been made frequently in the hours leading up to last night's murder of Troy Davis by the state of Georgia.
- It is profoundly hypocritical for "pro-lifers" to be so pro-death with regards to the death penalty.
- Conservatives seem to think that government is terrible at everything except killing people.
It occurs to me that each of these arguments is vulnerable to a simple inversion from the other side of the debate. I think it is worth pointing out why such reversals would not be potent.
A death penalty advocate (the sort that might, for example, cheer at the mere mention of executing 234 people) might ask "How can someone be against the execution of a cold-blooded killer but for the murder of innocent babies in the womb?" This sounds like a valid question. It is not. Here's why: Opposition to abortion is rooted in a mystical belief that a spiritual being is created the moment egg meets sperm and that only God Almighty has the right to take the life of that being. This explains their concomitant opposition to euthanasia, but leaves open the question of why mortals are permitted to make an exception in the case of capital punishment.
Some of us are not burdened by such otherworldly gobbledy-gook. (I won't get into a protracted argument about the ethics of abortion here, but if you're interested, you are invited to read a paper I recently wrote for a course in Biomedical Ethics - The Inherent Mysticism of Arguments Against Abortion.) While there are certainly those who oppose the death penalty on spiritual grounds, one need not have any religious belief to oppose the practice. In the case of Troy Davis, opposition was rooted primarily in concerns about justice. There was simply "too much doubt," as to whether Troy Davis had actually committed the act for which he was ostensibly being murdered by the state of Georgia. Note that in the case of abortion, there is no question of justice. No claim is being made against the fetus that may or may not be true.
So while it may be incredibly heart-wrenching to consider the possibility of Troy Davis's innocence, legitimate opposition to his execution can be as mechanical as a procedural concern about the functionality of our justice system - or even a selfish desire to protect oneself from a similar fate. One cannot protect oneself from abortion retroactively. One can, however, work to protect oneself from ultimate injustice by opposing the imposition of death by a capricious and fallible system.
The second argument is simpler. A death penalty advocate might wonder "If liberals think the government is so perfect, why don't they trust it to execute murderers?" Whereas today's conservatives argue that government is uniformly incompetent and oppressive, liberals simply believe that government CAN do good. We no more believe that government is perfect than that all corporations are uniformly evil. Government gets lots of things wrong - and we want to fix those things. Corporations do a lot of things well - and we think that's just great. We have no orthodoxy dictating universal truths to us. We just want things to work well and fairly. Many individuals have been convicted of crimes for which they were later exonerated. Some of them have been on death row. Yes, the death penalty takes a life. More importantly though, it eliminates the possibility of righting a wrong.
So while it may be incredibly heart-wrenching to consider the possibility of Troy Davis's innocence, legitimate opposition to his execution can be as mechanical as a procedural concern about the functionality of our justice system - or even a selfish desire to protect oneself from a similar fate. One cannot protect oneself from abortion retroactively. One can, however, work to protect oneself from ultimate injustice by opposing the imposition of death by a capricious and fallible system.
The second argument is simpler. A death penalty advocate might wonder "If liberals think the government is so perfect, why don't they trust it to execute murderers?" Whereas today's conservatives argue that government is uniformly incompetent and oppressive, liberals simply believe that government CAN do good. We no more believe that government is perfect than that all corporations are uniformly evil. Government gets lots of things wrong - and we want to fix those things. Corporations do a lot of things well - and we think that's just great. We have no orthodoxy dictating universal truths to us. We just want things to work well and fairly. Many individuals have been convicted of crimes for which they were later exonerated. Some of them have been on death row. Yes, the death penalty takes a life. More importantly though, it eliminates the possibility of righting a wrong.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
9/20/11 Miscellany
I'm going to try something new here. In my efforts to absorb as much information as possible, I read a lot and stumble across a lot of great material. My tendency in the past has been to either share full articles via Facebook/Twitter or try to develop one particular thought into a full essay for this blog. Unfortunately, that allows a lot of interesting stuff to slip through the cracks. I would like to try compiling excerpts and miscellaneous personal thoughts into posts and see where that leads. Let me know what you think...
First, a few interesting tidbits from the October 2011 issue of Harper's:
Harper's Index
Percentage of the current U.S. debt that was accumulated during Republican presidential terms: 71
Portion of debt-ceiling elevations since 1960 that have been signed into law by Republican presidents: 2/3
Percentage of profits American corporations paid in taxes in 1961: 40.6
Today: 10.5
Findings
Narcissists appear to be good leaders but aren't.
That finding was not sourced, but I did a little digging and found this study which says:
There's also a terrifying essay by Chris Lehmann on the influence of the Mormon church on GOP economic policy, particularly with regard to the worship of precious metals. It includes this reality check:
An excerpt from Jean-Paul Sartre's seminal novel:
And now a few of my own thoughts:
There was an uproar this week over Dr. Oz's revelation on his show that there is arsenic in apple juice. First, millions of moms all of over America who no longer have Oprah to turn to in the afternoons freaked the hell out and swore to never buy apple juice again. (Kids rejoiced at the replacement drink: Mountain Dew.) Then, the FDA struck back and said they'd been testing apple juice for years and that there is no danger to anyone from drinking the stuff, whether it be from China or the U.S.
This seems to me a striking inversion of the typical government vs. free market debate. After all, Dr. Oz may well, in his capacity as a capitalistic television personality and entrepreneur, have unnecessarily hurt the juice industry, which could easily cause financial harm and job losses. It was the FDA - a government agency - that rose to the defense of the industry, possibly staving off those losses. So what say you, conservatives, to this interesting little switcheroo? Is the government always the bogeyman? Can it, on occasion, do some good and actually help the economy? Can the free market sometimes shoot itself in the foot without the guiding hand of government regulation and oversight?
Also...I was thinking about patents. I can't pretend to understand the system well, but I know that patents do expire, at which point generic imitators are free to storm the barricades and start reaping profits from the ingenuity of others. I'm sincerely wondering how capitalists justify this. Do all of you tea partiers out there refrain from saving money by buying generic products? Ayn Rand would certainly frown upon such looting. Still, it is probably good for the economy, in the sense that jobs are created and money is made by the plagiarists. I wouldn't be surprised to find that the capitalists behind these mimicking corporations are died-in-the-wool fiscal conservatives, in direct contravention of their actions. In any event, I think that all Ron Paul-style conservatives should immediately cease purchasing any product that is not manufactured and sold by the originator of that product.
First, a few interesting tidbits from the October 2011 issue of Harper's:
Harper's Index
Percentage of the current U.S. debt that was accumulated during Republican presidential terms: 71
Portion of debt-ceiling elevations since 1960 that have been signed into law by Republican presidents: 2/3
Percentage of profits American corporations paid in taxes in 1961: 40.6
Today: 10.5
Findings
Narcissists appear to be good leaders but aren't.
That finding was not sourced, but I did a little digging and found this study which says:
Those who love themselves and have vast self-confidence often impress others with their self-belief, dominance and authority, leading them to climb the career ladder effortlessly.
However, scientists have discovered that while narcissists are convincing leaders, they are so consumed by their own brilliance that it actually cripples their creativity and often causes them to make bad decisions.Pennies From Heaven
There's also a terrifying essay by Chris Lehmann on the influence of the Mormon church on GOP economic policy, particularly with regard to the worship of precious metals. It includes this reality check:
By 1992, in fact, the economy was in a deep recession. In response, the Reagan Administration taxed and spent its way out of that slump via Keynesian-style deficit outlays for ballooning defense budgets and a 1982 tax increase - measures that would make hard-money conservatives woozy with acute cognitive dissonance, if they could bring themselves to acknowledge that they ever took place.Nausea
An excerpt from Jean-Paul Sartre's seminal novel:
Something is beginning in order to end: adventure does not let itself be drawn out; it only makes sense when dead. I am drawn, irrevocably, towards this death which is perhaps mine as well. Each instant appears only as part of a sequence. I cling to each instant with all my heart: I know that it is unique, irreplacaeble - and yet I would not raise a finger to stop it from being annihilated. This last moment I am spending - in Berlin, in London - in the arms of a woman casually met two days ago - moment I love passionately, woman I may adore - all is going to end, I know it. Soon I shall leave for another country. I shall never rediscover either this woman or this night. I grasp at each second, trying to suck it dry: nothing happens which I do not seize, which I do not fix forever in myself, nothing, neither the fugitive tenderness of those lovely eyes, nor the noises of the street, nor the false dawn of early morning: and even so the minute passes and I do not hold it back, I like to see it pass.
All of a sudden something breaks off sharply. The adventure is over, time resumes its daily routine. I turn; behind me, this beautiful melodious form sinks entirely into the past. It grows smaller, contracts as it declines, and now the end makes one with the beginning. Following this gold spot with my eyes I think I would accept - even if I had to risk death, lose a fortune, a friend - to live it all over again, in the same circumstances, from end to end. But and adventure never returns nor is prolonged.Questions
...
I wanted the moments of my life to follow and order themselves like those of a life remembered. You might as well try and catch time by the tail.
And now a few of my own thoughts:
There was an uproar this week over Dr. Oz's revelation on his show that there is arsenic in apple juice. First, millions of moms all of over America who no longer have Oprah to turn to in the afternoons freaked the hell out and swore to never buy apple juice again. (Kids rejoiced at the replacement drink: Mountain Dew.) Then, the FDA struck back and said they'd been testing apple juice for years and that there is no danger to anyone from drinking the stuff, whether it be from China or the U.S.
This seems to me a striking inversion of the typical government vs. free market debate. After all, Dr. Oz may well, in his capacity as a capitalistic television personality and entrepreneur, have unnecessarily hurt the juice industry, which could easily cause financial harm and job losses. It was the FDA - a government agency - that rose to the defense of the industry, possibly staving off those losses. So what say you, conservatives, to this interesting little switcheroo? Is the government always the bogeyman? Can it, on occasion, do some good and actually help the economy? Can the free market sometimes shoot itself in the foot without the guiding hand of government regulation and oversight?
Also...I was thinking about patents. I can't pretend to understand the system well, but I know that patents do expire, at which point generic imitators are free to storm the barricades and start reaping profits from the ingenuity of others. I'm sincerely wondering how capitalists justify this. Do all of you tea partiers out there refrain from saving money by buying generic products? Ayn Rand would certainly frown upon such looting. Still, it is probably good for the economy, in the sense that jobs are created and money is made by the plagiarists. I wouldn't be surprised to find that the capitalists behind these mimicking corporations are died-in-the-wool fiscal conservatives, in direct contravention of their actions. In any event, I think that all Ron Paul-style conservatives should immediately cease purchasing any product that is not manufactured and sold by the originator of that product.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)