So, this struck me as related to the general thrust of my posts, so I decided to discuss it briefly before going about my mid-day errands.
I was reminded again this morning of the problem with free market enterprise. Essentially, proponents of the unfettered market claim that, if capitalism were allowed to run its proper course, things would be much more efficient: companies which provide the best products will prosper, while those that are not as good, not as innovative, will die. Consumers get the best products at the best price, capitalists make profits. Shoddy workmanship gets punished. The reality, however, is that the giants in any particular field rarely turn out to be those making the best product, selling at the lowest price, or innovating intelligently. Case in point, the recent and ongoing problems with the financial system and the American auto makers.
Or, for that matter, the conversation I had with my sister this morning. The three of us--me, her, and her boyfriend--are all on the same cell phone plan. It's been great; my bill generally runs about $25-$30 per month, and pretty much everything goes smoothly. The problem is that we're with Unicel, which is in the process of being bought out by AT&T. By year's end, our phones will cease to work. As such, we're trying to figure out how to switch over to AT&T. Now, following the ideals of capitalism, one would expect that AT&T is therefore a better company to have one's cellphone through--if not, they wouldn't be taking over, right?
Wrong. In actuality, when we switch to AT&T, we're going to be screwed, and thoroughly. The cheapest AT&T plan, which will still be more expensive than our current plan, would have about half the minutes we currently get through Unicel, and will also--get this--not include free incoming calls. I personally was not aware there were still networks that did not routinely give you free incoming calls. So, I'm thinking already that this is crap. Why should we be forced, through a business takeover, to pay higher rates for a lower quality product? Is that what capitalism is supposed to do? It got worse. The package which offers about the same number of minutes we currently have is even more expensive, and still has no free incoming calls. In fact, the lowest costing AT&T plan that will offer us free incoming calls will run $100 per person per month. I have no idea how many minutes this would offer us. All I know is this would give us the same basic coverage we currently have FOR ABOUT THREE TIMES THE PRICE. So, um, how does this in any way reflect the ideals of capitalism and the efficiency of the marketplace? Answer: it doesn't. What it reflects, in fact, is the current incarnation of the reality of capitalism. And that reality is that the big guys on top don't give a shit what their customers want or need. Because it isn't about choice, not really. It's about restricting options until people take the lesser evil available to them. Fuck these overgrown capitalist dinosaurs, and fuck their free market. He concluded maturely.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Here's an interesting idea.
I could be a real jerk and just say "discuss," but let's consider this for a second.
On the one hand, there's the argument (made by libertarians, conservatives, etc) that the government has no right to do this. It's meddling beyond its acceptable limits. Sticking its nose where it doesn't belong, making us suffer under a socialist form of taxation in which those working hard and making the most are being penalized at the expense of everyone else.
And Yet:
As has been discussed rather extensively here, these guys aren't exactly Rhodes Scholars, or even of average intelligence. They ran their frickin companies into the ground. They don't appear to be especially bright, or concerned with the companies they run, or especially hard-working, either. It's about easy money, not long-term profits gained through toil. They made their money by being lucky idiots. So I don't buy the last third of argument #1.
At the same time, there are definitely sonme merits to that first position. Bailouts are arguably unconstitutional, as is any attempts by the federal government to regulate how much a corporation pays its CEOs and other top executives. Congress does not in fact have that power, nor does the Executive branch. And Lessig may be right about those being capped jump ship to other, unrestricted companies.
The question becomes, is it OK for the government to impose caps on corporate salaries? Ron Paul would argue that it's not only unconstitutional (because gov't isn't allowed to meddle like this, including bailouts) but also immoral. That's where, from my perspective, the water gets murky. Is it immoral to tell someone that they need to use federal bailout money for the purpose it was granted--i.e., fixing the system--rather than lining their own pockets with big celebratory bonuses? We could argue about whether or not the bailout is OK in the first place, but that's not what I'm after right here and now. The question right now is, are the proposed salary/bonus caps acceptable, or should the government not set such limits on its bailout cash?
What I find particularly interesting about this is the proposal mentioned in the first link, or rather, its source. this is an idea brought forth by a company executive. I always find myself pausing when I hear someone making massive amounts of money per year saying "take more of my income in taxes, please." Mostly, it is out of admiration. Here, as I see it, is someone expressing the root of what it means to be patriotic. Here is a person able to see beyond themselves, to so believe in the interconnectedness of every American citizen that they recognize their duty, as a successful individual, to help those around them. This is a person who recognizes that a country's greatness stems not from the wealth and prestige of single citizens, but the collective health, wealth, and happiness of its citizens.
To which Paul would say, sure--let HIM pay higher taxes if he wants to. Why should anyone else have to? It's a pointed question, but one that I think many of us, if we really considered it, might see this as a slap in the face of the concept of America as a nation. If the individual and her personal desires are to be supreme over all other considerations, then what we have is not a coherent nation. We have a bunch of individuals. Good, bad, indifferent, passionate, what have you, we have individuals. Over the last several decades, Americans have been increasingly encouraged to see themselves that way, and while it is important to maintain a view of oneself that is NOT simply a number, a member of the faceless mass, it is also necessary to remember the consequences of taking this idea too far. If, in the end, each of us is simply ourself, purely an individual, then we lose the ability to come together as a group, to make positive change. It's a process that a number of theorists--Erik Swyngedouw, in particular--have noted in the field of labor relations and industry, and which has likewise permeated our culture.
What fascinates me about Ron Paul's book The Revolution is that it proposes to increase the pressures toward this individual-centrism, making all taxes voluntary, allowing each person to decide for themselves whether or not they will give money to the government that ultimately has a responsibility to protect them from outside aggression, police their streets, and possibly perform other responsibilities that, while not spelled out in the Constitution, ought to be. Things that these individuals would not want to be responsible for doing themselves. Yet Paul argues that in such a society, more people would voluntarily stretch beyond themselves, take care of their neighbors, participate in their communities, and the like. I'm not sure I buy it. Seems to me that this sort of thing would only encourage the "but it's about me" mentality, not combat it.
People need to be retaught that being a citizen of a country is not merely a convenience for them, or a right. Privilege is privilege, and with it must come both the recognition of having it, and also the acknowledgement that privilege comes of necessity with responsibility. We must relearn to see ourselves as citizens of the nation, as parts of something larger than ourselves.
The question I then have to ask myself is, how do we accomplish this without turning totalitarian fascist?
I could be a real jerk and just say "discuss," but let's consider this for a second.
On the one hand, there's the argument (made by libertarians, conservatives, etc) that the government has no right to do this. It's meddling beyond its acceptable limits. Sticking its nose where it doesn't belong, making us suffer under a socialist form of taxation in which those working hard and making the most are being penalized at the expense of everyone else.
And Yet:
As has been discussed rather extensively here, these guys aren't exactly Rhodes Scholars, or even of average intelligence. They ran their frickin companies into the ground. They don't appear to be especially bright, or concerned with the companies they run, or especially hard-working, either. It's about easy money, not long-term profits gained through toil. They made their money by being lucky idiots. So I don't buy the last third of argument #1.
At the same time, there are definitely sonme merits to that first position. Bailouts are arguably unconstitutional, as is any attempts by the federal government to regulate how much a corporation pays its CEOs and other top executives. Congress does not in fact have that power, nor does the Executive branch. And Lessig may be right about those being capped jump ship to other, unrestricted companies.
The question becomes, is it OK for the government to impose caps on corporate salaries? Ron Paul would argue that it's not only unconstitutional (because gov't isn't allowed to meddle like this, including bailouts) but also immoral. That's where, from my perspective, the water gets murky. Is it immoral to tell someone that they need to use federal bailout money for the purpose it was granted--i.e., fixing the system--rather than lining their own pockets with big celebratory bonuses? We could argue about whether or not the bailout is OK in the first place, but that's not what I'm after right here and now. The question right now is, are the proposed salary/bonus caps acceptable, or should the government not set such limits on its bailout cash?
What I find particularly interesting about this is the proposal mentioned in the first link, or rather, its source. this is an idea brought forth by a company executive. I always find myself pausing when I hear someone making massive amounts of money per year saying "take more of my income in taxes, please." Mostly, it is out of admiration. Here, as I see it, is someone expressing the root of what it means to be patriotic. Here is a person able to see beyond themselves, to so believe in the interconnectedness of every American citizen that they recognize their duty, as a successful individual, to help those around them. This is a person who recognizes that a country's greatness stems not from the wealth and prestige of single citizens, but the collective health, wealth, and happiness of its citizens.
To which Paul would say, sure--let HIM pay higher taxes if he wants to. Why should anyone else have to? It's a pointed question, but one that I think many of us, if we really considered it, might see this as a slap in the face of the concept of America as a nation. If the individual and her personal desires are to be supreme over all other considerations, then what we have is not a coherent nation. We have a bunch of individuals. Good, bad, indifferent, passionate, what have you, we have individuals. Over the last several decades, Americans have been increasingly encouraged to see themselves that way, and while it is important to maintain a view of oneself that is NOT simply a number, a member of the faceless mass, it is also necessary to remember the consequences of taking this idea too far. If, in the end, each of us is simply ourself, purely an individual, then we lose the ability to come together as a group, to make positive change. It's a process that a number of theorists--Erik Swyngedouw, in particular--have noted in the field of labor relations and industry, and which has likewise permeated our culture.
What fascinates me about Ron Paul's book The Revolution is that it proposes to increase the pressures toward this individual-centrism, making all taxes voluntary, allowing each person to decide for themselves whether or not they will give money to the government that ultimately has a responsibility to protect them from outside aggression, police their streets, and possibly perform other responsibilities that, while not spelled out in the Constitution, ought to be. Things that these individuals would not want to be responsible for doing themselves. Yet Paul argues that in such a society, more people would voluntarily stretch beyond themselves, take care of their neighbors, participate in their communities, and the like. I'm not sure I buy it. Seems to me that this sort of thing would only encourage the "but it's about me" mentality, not combat it.
People need to be retaught that being a citizen of a country is not merely a convenience for them, or a right. Privilege is privilege, and with it must come both the recognition of having it, and also the acknowledgement that privilege comes of necessity with responsibility. We must relearn to see ourselves as citizens of the nation, as parts of something larger than ourselves.
The question I then have to ask myself is, how do we accomplish this without turning totalitarian fascist?
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Briefly, before my time on the library computer ends and the place shuts down. Let's talk about political beliefs, shall we?
I've become a bit torn of late. A lot of my recent reading--Ron Paul's The Revolution, several articles in the alternative quarterly Vermont Commons, etc.--have introduced me to some of the more attractive ideas that inspire libertarianism. There's a lot to be said for a doctrine which believes, first, in a strict adherence to the U.S. Constitution, second, in the individual's rights as guaranteed under that document, and third, in limiting the power of federal goverment to matters requiring national attention, which cannot be adequately handled on the state, municipal, or personal level. It suggests, strongly, the need for an actively engaged, informed, passionate civic body, and seems to exemplify the ideas which went into the founding of America to begin with. The purpose of the Constitution, after all, is to set clear limits on the powers of the federal government. I've actually been reading it this afternoon, and realizing just how far we've drifted as a nation.
However, I see several definite drawbacks to libertarianism, particularly as reflected in Ron Paul's book. First, Paul advocates the abolition of income taxes and of tariffs and other penalties for imported goods. While this latter especially has lnog been pointed to as a force which serves only the interests of corporate America, and not the consumer, the removal of Congress's sole sources under the Constitution for collecting money strieks me as a sure way to destroy what's left of America. A government with no money coming in cannot pay out in any direction without increasing the already enormous deficits. Worse, a federal government with no money that tried nevertheless to cut spending would, among other probabilities, have to lower and eventually do away with salaries for federal employees. Which may seem all well and good until one realizes that the only way to accomplish this is to encourage de facto restrictions on who may serve in federal office, limiting them entirely to those able to support themselves without having to be at another job. In effect, we would transform our federal government into the oligarchical republic known by the Romans--exactly what this country is supposed to be fighting against.
There are other problems, of course, more broadly. While I agree on principle with decentralizing education and healthcare, for instance--let these things work at the state and local level; get rid especially of government's insistence on insurance (federal or HMO), and perhaps limit the power of the Department of Ed--at the same time I understand the impetus driving both. The federal education system is intended, after all, to insure that our children are being taken care of. Systems in place in which government takes money from everyone to pay for everyone's kids' education, in my book, is not immoral (as Paul would call it): it is putting forth the belief that we all, individuals though we be, have a responsibility toward our nation as a whole, and toward ensuring the greatness of our children and their peers. Which is not to say that federal money should have heavy strings attached; minimal federal oversight would be sufficient, however. Primarily, the federal government ought to serve as a secondary funding source, giving equal money to all schools, and spending more of its budget on making sure schools have adequate funding. Perhaps minimal national standards have their place. Beyond ensuring that our children are receiving proper intellectual care, however, federal government should stay out. I reject that federal involvement necessitates indoctrination, any more than having academic content determined by state or local governments is likewise indoctrination (and it certain is, regardless of which government is controlling it, or whether it's simply the parents of the community--it's always indoctrination). Likewise, I think all Americans have an obligation toward each other, to make sure we are all fed, clothed, warm, healthy. This doesn't necessarily mean forced distribution of wealth, either; it means humanitarian effort on the local level, where people are more inclined to be humanitarians.
While I accept in many particulars the positions of libertarianism, I also reject one of their fundamental tenets, that the marketplace is the best form of efficiency. Much of what I've been reading suggests that if schools and health care providers were allowed to compete more fully for customers, we'd have better schools and insurance companies. I doubt it. First, as poorer schools failed to compete, they'd be forced to close, making it necessary for the poor students they had taught to go elsewhere--probably to more expensive schools. Assuming this doesn't drive their families broke and starving, it would place significantly more burden on those better schools to accomodate more students. Those schools would then begin to suffer many of the issues currently being decried in America's schools: overcrowding, insufficient funding. We'd be back at square one, only with even fewer schools to choose from. Marketplace mentality does not strike me as an effective way to fix the school system, at all.
So I find myself at a bit of a loss. I hate the idea of labels, yet I constantly seek them out, to pigeonhole myself. And I can't find one that helps other people understand my beliefs. I'm not even sure I understand them, for that matter. There are a lot of gray areas, a lot of places where I see both sides of the issue, where I'm really not sure what I think. Without having yet read over the specifics, I think I'm probably most in agreement with the Republican party of George Aiken and other New Englanders, who were progressive in many ways, yet true to their party's original stance on spending and smaller government. I'll keep posting on here as I discover more about me and them, I guess...
A query: Why hasn't anyone ever started the machinery for a Constitutional Amendment requiring Presidential elections to involve anything other than state governments? After all, the true text of the Constitution only mentions state-appointed electors. Why haven't we fixed this to guard against a removal of the people from the entire process somewhere down the road?
I've become a bit torn of late. A lot of my recent reading--Ron Paul's The Revolution, several articles in the alternative quarterly Vermont Commons, etc.--have introduced me to some of the more attractive ideas that inspire libertarianism. There's a lot to be said for a doctrine which believes, first, in a strict adherence to the U.S. Constitution, second, in the individual's rights as guaranteed under that document, and third, in limiting the power of federal goverment to matters requiring national attention, which cannot be adequately handled on the state, municipal, or personal level. It suggests, strongly, the need for an actively engaged, informed, passionate civic body, and seems to exemplify the ideas which went into the founding of America to begin with. The purpose of the Constitution, after all, is to set clear limits on the powers of the federal government. I've actually been reading it this afternoon, and realizing just how far we've drifted as a nation.
However, I see several definite drawbacks to libertarianism, particularly as reflected in Ron Paul's book. First, Paul advocates the abolition of income taxes and of tariffs and other penalties for imported goods. While this latter especially has lnog been pointed to as a force which serves only the interests of corporate America, and not the consumer, the removal of Congress's sole sources under the Constitution for collecting money strieks me as a sure way to destroy what's left of America. A government with no money coming in cannot pay out in any direction without increasing the already enormous deficits. Worse, a federal government with no money that tried nevertheless to cut spending would, among other probabilities, have to lower and eventually do away with salaries for federal employees. Which may seem all well and good until one realizes that the only way to accomplish this is to encourage de facto restrictions on who may serve in federal office, limiting them entirely to those able to support themselves without having to be at another job. In effect, we would transform our federal government into the oligarchical republic known by the Romans--exactly what this country is supposed to be fighting against.
There are other problems, of course, more broadly. While I agree on principle with decentralizing education and healthcare, for instance--let these things work at the state and local level; get rid especially of government's insistence on insurance (federal or HMO), and perhaps limit the power of the Department of Ed--at the same time I understand the impetus driving both. The federal education system is intended, after all, to insure that our children are being taken care of. Systems in place in which government takes money from everyone to pay for everyone's kids' education, in my book, is not immoral (as Paul would call it): it is putting forth the belief that we all, individuals though we be, have a responsibility toward our nation as a whole, and toward ensuring the greatness of our children and their peers. Which is not to say that federal money should have heavy strings attached; minimal federal oversight would be sufficient, however. Primarily, the federal government ought to serve as a secondary funding source, giving equal money to all schools, and spending more of its budget on making sure schools have adequate funding. Perhaps minimal national standards have their place. Beyond ensuring that our children are receiving proper intellectual care, however, federal government should stay out. I reject that federal involvement necessitates indoctrination, any more than having academic content determined by state or local governments is likewise indoctrination (and it certain is, regardless of which government is controlling it, or whether it's simply the parents of the community--it's always indoctrination). Likewise, I think all Americans have an obligation toward each other, to make sure we are all fed, clothed, warm, healthy. This doesn't necessarily mean forced distribution of wealth, either; it means humanitarian effort on the local level, where people are more inclined to be humanitarians.
While I accept in many particulars the positions of libertarianism, I also reject one of their fundamental tenets, that the marketplace is the best form of efficiency. Much of what I've been reading suggests that if schools and health care providers were allowed to compete more fully for customers, we'd have better schools and insurance companies. I doubt it. First, as poorer schools failed to compete, they'd be forced to close, making it necessary for the poor students they had taught to go elsewhere--probably to more expensive schools. Assuming this doesn't drive their families broke and starving, it would place significantly more burden on those better schools to accomodate more students. Those schools would then begin to suffer many of the issues currently being decried in America's schools: overcrowding, insufficient funding. We'd be back at square one, only with even fewer schools to choose from. Marketplace mentality does not strike me as an effective way to fix the school system, at all.
So I find myself at a bit of a loss. I hate the idea of labels, yet I constantly seek them out, to pigeonhole myself. And I can't find one that helps other people understand my beliefs. I'm not even sure I understand them, for that matter. There are a lot of gray areas, a lot of places where I see both sides of the issue, where I'm really not sure what I think. Without having yet read over the specifics, I think I'm probably most in agreement with the Republican party of George Aiken and other New Englanders, who were progressive in many ways, yet true to their party's original stance on spending and smaller government. I'll keep posting on here as I discover more about me and them, I guess...
A query: Why hasn't anyone ever started the machinery for a Constitutional Amendment requiring Presidential elections to involve anything other than state governments? After all, the true text of the Constitution only mentions state-appointed electors. Why haven't we fixed this to guard against a removal of the people from the entire process somewhere down the road?
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
So, I had a movie recommended a lnog while ago that I finmally got around to renting yesterday and watching last night. It was amazing. So here're my admittedly scattered take on Once.
Plot Summary: An unnamed busker/vacuum repairman (played by Glen Hansard of The Frames) on the streets of Dublin meets and befriends an assertive young Czech woman (also unnamed, played by Marketa Irglova), who jumpstarts his life. Our busker (known henceforth as "guy," his identification in the credits) pines after the woman who got away: a young lady with whom he had a long relationship which ended when she cheated on him and left for London. The Girl (Irglova's character) plays piano and is currently separated from the father of her toddler daughter. The two strike up a friendship, collaborate musically, and sort of dance around the possibility of a relationship. Ultimately, the arrange studio time to record an album together with some other street musicians. I'll leave out the denouement so as not to spoil...
Cinematography Etc: Made on about $160,000, mostly with handheld cameras etc. The lead characters are both musicians, and good friends; Hansard says in the DVD commentary that a lot of the film is not really them acting at all. Extensive use of wide-lens shots, fine views of Dublin-area scenery in backgrounds.
Altogether, an emotional, beautiful, musical journey. 4 stars.
Plot Summary: An unnamed busker/vacuum repairman (played by Glen Hansard of The Frames) on the streets of Dublin meets and befriends an assertive young Czech woman (also unnamed, played by Marketa Irglova), who jumpstarts his life. Our busker (known henceforth as "guy," his identification in the credits) pines after the woman who got away: a young lady with whom he had a long relationship which ended when she cheated on him and left for London. The Girl (Irglova's character) plays piano and is currently separated from the father of her toddler daughter. The two strike up a friendship, collaborate musically, and sort of dance around the possibility of a relationship. Ultimately, the arrange studio time to record an album together with some other street musicians. I'll leave out the denouement so as not to spoil...
Cinematography Etc: Made on about $160,000, mostly with handheld cameras etc. The lead characters are both musicians, and good friends; Hansard says in the DVD commentary that a lot of the film is not really them acting at all. Extensive use of wide-lens shots, fine views of Dublin-area scenery in backgrounds.
Altogether, an emotional, beautiful, musical journey. 4 stars.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
If I may be so bold as to make political recommendations, please, please, PLEASE contact your Senators and Congressmen and ask them to vote against bailing out the Big Three car manufacturers. Under the current proposal, Congress would give these companies a total of $25 billion, no strings attached, to keep them afloat. Supporters claim that car sales for Ford, Chrystler, and GM are down because of the financial meltdown, and that these corporations are so integral to the US economy that bailing them out in this fashion is the only option. Wrong, and wrong.
First: the Big Three have been in trouble for a lot longer than the past year, and it ain't due to banking problems. American auto makers have been losing money for years because foreign cars are coming in with better gas mileage, more efficient engines, and competitive price tags. Essentially, the foreign auto makers are meeting the market's demands better than our domestic producers, who whine and drag their feet and claim that they can't do better than they are now. Funny, not only are your competitors from Japan doing it, you also did it for a while during the 70s when there was an oil crisis (it's true; BackHome Magazine recently demonstrated that cars from the late 70s/early 80s were actually more efficient than they are today...). So, the Big Three have gotten where they are largely because they've been ignoring the wants and needs of their targeted domestic markets. Which is, uh, lousy capitalism. The whole point is supposed to be that you sell what people are looking to buy, isn't it? So why should our money go to bail out companies too dumb to pay attention to marketing trends, too stupid to see where the money is and jump on the wagon? How is that at all in our nation's best interest?
Second, I've heard some supporters of the bill claim that attaching strings and requirments to the government loans--say, requiring the corporations to cap executive escape packages, or *gasp* increase fuel efficiency in their products--would only serve to put unfair strain on the companies, forcing them to go under; some even suggest that the companies will choose insolvency over loans with strings. This is total crap. What large American corporation wants to go under? These are profit-driven companies; given the choice between a) floundering, collapsing, and ceasing to make money, or b) altering their products to meet the needs of the domestic market and thereby not only receiving government cash but also having future profits pretty well ensured, which are they gonna choose? Hmm...death or profit?
The fact is, if we just hand them the money, they aren't going to start selling more cars than they're selling now. In six months they'll be back asking for more money, and still not offering their customers anything that most of those customers need or want. A lot of commentators are apt to see this as us being in a tight spot, needing desperately to save these comapnies before we all get sucked down the crapper. But really, it's the other way around. They're on the barrel, not us. It's time for the American people and their Congressional representatives to grow a pair, and start making these dumbasses pay for their own mistakes, or at least earn our handouts. It's not a free ride; if they can't provide us with things we want or need, fuck em. Please, please, get in touch with your home state reps and ask them to vote this bailout down in its current form. Ask them to support better conditions for the release of this money.
I have personally called and/or emailed all three of my home state's representatives, plus send an email message to one Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, asking him to use his current influence as Pres-Elect to convince his fellow Democrats not to support the bill (which, according to the Burlington Free Press, they've actually been the ones pushing the bailout in the first place.)
First: the Big Three have been in trouble for a lot longer than the past year, and it ain't due to banking problems. American auto makers have been losing money for years because foreign cars are coming in with better gas mileage, more efficient engines, and competitive price tags. Essentially, the foreign auto makers are meeting the market's demands better than our domestic producers, who whine and drag their feet and claim that they can't do better than they are now. Funny, not only are your competitors from Japan doing it, you also did it for a while during the 70s when there was an oil crisis (it's true; BackHome Magazine recently demonstrated that cars from the late 70s/early 80s were actually more efficient than they are today...). So, the Big Three have gotten where they are largely because they've been ignoring the wants and needs of their targeted domestic markets. Which is, uh, lousy capitalism. The whole point is supposed to be that you sell what people are looking to buy, isn't it? So why should our money go to bail out companies too dumb to pay attention to marketing trends, too stupid to see where the money is and jump on the wagon? How is that at all in our nation's best interest?
Second, I've heard some supporters of the bill claim that attaching strings and requirments to the government loans--say, requiring the corporations to cap executive escape packages, or *gasp* increase fuel efficiency in their products--would only serve to put unfair strain on the companies, forcing them to go under; some even suggest that the companies will choose insolvency over loans with strings. This is total crap. What large American corporation wants to go under? These are profit-driven companies; given the choice between a) floundering, collapsing, and ceasing to make money, or b) altering their products to meet the needs of the domestic market and thereby not only receiving government cash but also having future profits pretty well ensured, which are they gonna choose? Hmm...death or profit?
The fact is, if we just hand them the money, they aren't going to start selling more cars than they're selling now. In six months they'll be back asking for more money, and still not offering their customers anything that most of those customers need or want. A lot of commentators are apt to see this as us being in a tight spot, needing desperately to save these comapnies before we all get sucked down the crapper. But really, it's the other way around. They're on the barrel, not us. It's time for the American people and their Congressional representatives to grow a pair, and start making these dumbasses pay for their own mistakes, or at least earn our handouts. It's not a free ride; if they can't provide us with things we want or need, fuck em. Please, please, get in touch with your home state reps and ask them to vote this bailout down in its current form. Ask them to support better conditions for the release of this money.
I have personally called and/or emailed all three of my home state's representatives, plus send an email message to one Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, asking him to use his current influence as Pres-Elect to convince his fellow Democrats not to support the bill (which, according to the Burlington Free Press, they've actually been the ones pushing the bailout in the first place.)
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
So, this is what I've been ruminating over for the past day or so, ever since I was walking around cold while everything was closed and also feeling slightly spiritual--when did churches start locking their doors? In movies, TV shows, books, etc, characters are still often portrayed simply walking into houses of worship when it suits them. Not to mention that these same cultural productions occasionally depict homeless or inebriated people sleeping in churches when they have nowhere else to go. And yet at two in the afternoon on a Monday morning, the churches around here are locked. WTF?
I see a number of problems here. I suspect the door-locking thing originating in fears of vandalism and the like. However: how many people in a town this size (2000 census: just over 5000) are going to walk into the Puffer United Methodist Church in mid-day and vandalize it? I could maybe see locking the buildings after dark as a crime-deterrent, but why during the day? It doesn't follow.
However, my big concern is really with the implications of the act itself. First, why if God is always there, always listening, and cares (and for the record, I don't argue against that position), would the doors of holy buildings be locked except on specific days at specific times? It strikes me as a rather contradictory position to take; it also would seem to suggest that religious feelings etc should be reserved for the proper time and place, i.e., Sunday morning services. Which sort of works against the idea of integrating religion or spirituality into daily life, something that many religious leaders advocate. If you lock the house of worship except on certain occasions, how are people to feel connected to it or its ideas except when allowed in?
Secondly--and this is where I would almost argue that the doors shouldn't be locked even at night--one complaint one hears often from fundies, right-wingers, and even moderate- or left-leaning Church groups in America is the decline in relevance that the church plays in the lives of those around it. But honestly, I feel sort of like we're stuck in the first half-hour of Sister Act here; you can't credibly complain that the community ignores you if you shut yourself away from the community. Moreover, doing so would seem to contradict the very spirit of Christianity, which advocates living as Jesus strove to: walking among the downtrodden, helping the sick and poor and those desiring spiritual or physical aid. Which is probably why for so long in America, the church was such an important part of the social landscape. It was truly a community center, not just a place to receive weekly lectures on the way to salvation. Well, of course our Puritan origins had something to do with it, too, but my point is that the church's participation in the daily lives of the citizens seemed to have coincided with the era in which most people in this country belonged to or at least regularly attended a church. People were more religious because it wasn't a segregated part of their lives. The church building itself served multiple functions, and spirituality infused the rest of life to a much greater extent and for more people. So maybe the key to creating a sense of church/religion as relevant to the average American would be to *gasp* unlock the damn building?
Finally, I would argue that this moves away from being a matter of religious feeling, and has the potential to turn church and religion into the same kind of authoritarian structure that made so many of us hate public education: show up when we tell you to, sit, shut up, and let us deliver truth--as defined and organized by us--unto your minds. Then get out of here. Doors closed & locked. Makes it rigid, structured, and less an organic part of life, less integrated.
But then, I'm not a regular church goer myself, so what do I know?
I see a number of problems here. I suspect the door-locking thing originating in fears of vandalism and the like. However: how many people in a town this size (2000 census: just over 5000) are going to walk into the Puffer United Methodist Church in mid-day and vandalize it? I could maybe see locking the buildings after dark as a crime-deterrent, but why during the day? It doesn't follow.
However, my big concern is really with the implications of the act itself. First, why if God is always there, always listening, and cares (and for the record, I don't argue against that position), would the doors of holy buildings be locked except on specific days at specific times? It strikes me as a rather contradictory position to take; it also would seem to suggest that religious feelings etc should be reserved for the proper time and place, i.e., Sunday morning services. Which sort of works against the idea of integrating religion or spirituality into daily life, something that many religious leaders advocate. If you lock the house of worship except on certain occasions, how are people to feel connected to it or its ideas except when allowed in?
Secondly--and this is where I would almost argue that the doors shouldn't be locked even at night--one complaint one hears often from fundies, right-wingers, and even moderate- or left-leaning Church groups in America is the decline in relevance that the church plays in the lives of those around it. But honestly, I feel sort of like we're stuck in the first half-hour of Sister Act here; you can't credibly complain that the community ignores you if you shut yourself away from the community. Moreover, doing so would seem to contradict the very spirit of Christianity, which advocates living as Jesus strove to: walking among the downtrodden, helping the sick and poor and those desiring spiritual or physical aid. Which is probably why for so long in America, the church was such an important part of the social landscape. It was truly a community center, not just a place to receive weekly lectures on the way to salvation. Well, of course our Puritan origins had something to do with it, too, but my point is that the church's participation in the daily lives of the citizens seemed to have coincided with the era in which most people in this country belonged to or at least regularly attended a church. People were more religious because it wasn't a segregated part of their lives. The church building itself served multiple functions, and spirituality infused the rest of life to a much greater extent and for more people. So maybe the key to creating a sense of church/religion as relevant to the average American would be to *gasp* unlock the damn building?
Finally, I would argue that this moves away from being a matter of religious feeling, and has the potential to turn church and religion into the same kind of authoritarian structure that made so many of us hate public education: show up when we tell you to, sit, shut up, and let us deliver truth--as defined and organized by us--unto your minds. Then get out of here. Doors closed & locked. Makes it rigid, structured, and less an organic part of life, less integrated.
But then, I'm not a regular church goer myself, so what do I know?
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Jay Ekis: Touched By War
A curious blending of influences, synthesized into an overall pleasing sound: perhaps the best angle to approach this album that I purchased a couple days ago after Ekis's solo performance at the Bee's Knees in Morrisville, VT. Ekis's sound is difficult to classify, because he draws on so many sources. Perhaps most obvious, at first listen, is his debt to the sound of classic Pink Floyd, with soaring slide guitar solos, literate lyrics, and a simple, relatively pure tenor vocal. Songs such as "Fire," the opening track, display this tendency most clearly; likewise, the closing tune, "Quiet Voices" sounds like one of Floyd's more introspective, organ-y ballads. Yet there are also marked debts to country music--"Ride Free" and "Shannon," the tale of a tattoo-covered barmaid and a love song, respectively, are straight-up country a la Kris Kristofferson or Wilco's contributions to Mermaid Avenue. With the inclusion of a few 70s/80s-influenced rock numbers ("Guns and Stone," the title track, and "Just a Fact") the folky-sounding "Bleed," and the marvelous "Down," this coalesces into an intriguing stew of styles that somehow mananges to seem coherent. Perhaps it is Ekis's voice, which seems equally at home with upbeat full-band songs like "Just a Fact" and with the solo acoustic "Bleed". Perhaps it is rather the quality of the lyrics, which blend the best of all genres: by turns poetic and straightforward, apocalyptic and wryly humorous, and often insightful, Ekis's songwriting also occasionally reflects his self-professed early love--heavy metal. War-torn songs like "Guns and Stone" contain imagery that sometimes sounds like something from one of Metallica's classic sturm und drang pieces. But perhaps most of all, the coherence is obtained through the efforts of Ekis's bandmates, who successfully blend all these sounds, giving one a distinctively country-sounding bass or hints of slide or pseudo-steel guitar in some of the rock numbers, and a slight edge of distortion on the more country-oriented tunes. Altogether, a well crafted batch of songs, ably performed--a satisfying and thought-provoking listening experience. 3.5 stars
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)