The system isn't set up to benefit the average, working class American. In fact, it is designed to impoverish the average American with unnecessary consumption fueled by the great Chinese credit card. Billions of dollars are spent by the advertising industry to create artificial wants and artificial "needs" in people. The government issues bonds, prints money, and the Chinese buy these bonds. The banks get lent the money, who offer it to consumers to buy things they cannot afford. This is supposed to fuel "economic growth." Unfortunately, this model isn't sustainable. You can only play economic shell games for so long without creating real value before the system collapses. The Chinese are currently in the business of making things. We aren't. Most of our manufacturing was offshored to create short term profits for investors and CEOs. Sure, everyone's lives got ruined, but that's neither here nor there.
After the housing bubble burst and the financial meltdown of 2008, Wall Street got bailed out while Main Street got foreclosed on. Debts were socialized while profits were privatized to the big banks. In a system like this, if you aren't a big investor, you are going to lose. Big time. Due to the corruption of money in the electoral system, change isn't coming, regardless of the next set of elections.
That means you are going to have to rely on self-help if you plan on surviving. The politicians aren't going to look out for your needs, not when they are busy giving large agribusiness more subsidies and cutting food stamps for poor children.
One of the big areas of inflation lately has been food prices. The drought of 2012 is only going to make these worse. People are going to need to start growing their own food. If you have land in the country, this shouldn't be too difficult. Living in the city is more challenging. Thankfully, it only takes a small amount of space to grow your own vegetables, even if you have to do so in flower pots. The other alternative is to join together with our folks in a food cooperative. Everyone pitches in the money to work together in raising a community garden where the food is apportioned. The other benefit is you can choose to grow your food organically and avoid pesticides and herbicides.
Meat is more difficult to come by. I have friends who are big deer hunters. If hunting isn't your thing, then networking with friends who are deer hunters is a great idea. Many catch more than enough meat for themselves and are looking to sell it. The benefit of deer meat is that it is rich with Omega-3 fatty acids, which reduce inflammation in the body and are good for the heart. The same goes for fishing, although you have to be aware of where fish were caught to avoid eating fish contaminated by toxins. Living in the country, you can also find farm fresh eggs at very reasonable cost. The other option is to go together with another family and buy a whole, half, or quarter cow from an Amish farmer. You buy in bulk and pay much less. Many of these cows are not raised on factory farms, so it is much more humane for them. It also supports local agriculture, which is better for the local economy, not to mention how much cleaner pastured beef can be and how much more health it is for the cow because it isn't feeding exclusively on grains which harm the cow's digestive system and make it sick.
Trading is another important survival skill. Much of the time, friends and neighbors have skills you don't. Both of you may be lacking money, but not the need for services. My neighbor is a mechanic. He can open my car hood and tell me what is wrong. I look at a broken down car and make the sign of the cross. I do know about fixing computers. If your computer has a virus, then I can get rid of it. My neighbor isn't into computers, although he has one and needs it to conduct his business. Thanks to the fun of barter, he now has a working computer and I have a running car. Not bad.
But what if you need something that a friend or neighbor can't do? What if you need a plumber but you don't know one? The first thing you should try is to look up the problem on the Internet and try to solve the problem yourself. Many times there are tutorials on Youtube about how to fix things that are much more helpful than looking up the problem in a book with diagrams. Most plumbing repairs can be done with a little patience and a lot of dedication. You just have to be willing to get your hands dirty. But if the problem is beyond you, then all hope is not lost. That's where craigslist comes in. By putting a free ad on craigslist, you can seek a plumber or handyman with experience and make an offer on the price. In a depressed labor market, usually someone will be willing to do the work for a reasonable price. This person might even be willing to barter with you if you have some special skill they need. It could be that his or her computer is broke, too.
Getting rid of TV is the best thing you can do to keep your budget in survival mode. The ads on TV are designed to make you think your life sucks. Just watch TV shows and in them everyone seems rich. Remember "Friends"? Those people had shitty jobs and lived in a super posh apartment in New York. Plus they never seemed to actually have to work. When you live in Manhattan, you have to work your ass off just to live in a broom closet. The same goes for clothing.
The Real Housewives of Whatever live luxurious lifestyles filled with gossip and ease. Seeing how they live can really make you question your own existence. This is especially true with the Kardashians, who are famous for being famous. They buy Bentleys and pose for magazine covers. This is how they "work." Unfortunately, most of us have nothing in common with these kinds of lifestyles.
We aren't in a "Leave it to Beaver" world anymore. America's days of producing things and creating value based on reality seem limited. We are going to become more and more like a Third World country. That means a huge number of poor people and a small number of immensely rich people, like Mitt Romney. The remaining 99% need to start thinking creatively and out of the box if they expect to survive. Now is the time to begin.
The books below are fantastic and highly recommended for the remaining 99%.
How To Survive Without A Salary: Learning to Live the Conserver Lifestyle by Charles Long
Your Money or Your Life
Thursday, July 26, 2012
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
The Genius of Sarah Silverman
Great satire, when done right, can be enjoyed on multiple levels. While appearing simplistic and relatively crude in cartoonish form, the Simpsons has been a brilliant social satire for over the last twenty years. It is something that educated adults can enjoy while the kids laugh along. Being able to pull of satire well calls for a very delicate mastery not only of the original source material, but an ability to spoof that material in a subtle way without going "over the line."
At the present moment in American history, you can say whatever you want about a person's religion, sexual habits, or drug use and get away with it. So called "shock jocks" employ these mindless tactics to gain audience share in a pathetic attempt to seem edgy and relevant. It's a winning formula only because the average audience is filled with enough unsophisticated dolts who think they are rebels.
But making jokes about a person's race is considered the ultimate taboo. That will get your career tanked faster than anything. As I mentioned earlier, you can't even say "nigger" because it is considered so anathema, people will simply die if they hear the word, so you have to say "the n-word" instead.
Dave Chappelle is hilarious. His short lived "Dave Chappelle Show" poked fun at all races, but not without some measure of controversy. The difference was that because Chappelle was black, he could get away with it. No white person could of done what Chappelle did without Al Sharpton having a heart attack and demanding you bow down before him in supplication.
Sarah Silverman lacks the proper credentials on race to make the same kind of jokes, yet she does it--and gets away with it because of her extreme verbal giftedness. While playing the ironic, socially clueless, girl next door, she effortlessly two steps through the minefield of racial taboos, combining these with a comedy that is smart and dynamic. She is essentially a Garrison Keillor or Stephen Colbert--but with ten times the wit. Silverman makes it all seem so easy. It is only until you think about what she has managed to do with her work that you come to appreciate how verbally agile she actually is.
Even at the age of 21, reviewing her earlier work, there are periods where she spontaneously interacts with her audience, sparring with them and thinking on her feet. She manages to move from one subject to the next, playing with language like a cat with a caught mouse. It's the same sort of skill that would have made her an excellent trial lawyer, or, more artistically, a poet.
Silverman herself is liberal, not racist, and comes from a progressive minded family. In fact, her mother was a photographer for the liberal McGovern for president campaign back in the 1970's. But it's only through the looking up of her background that you discover these details. The great thing about Silverman is that you don't need to--she says one thing but you already know she means another. Dressed up like the devil, she's an angel in disguise.
At the present moment in American history, you can say whatever you want about a person's religion, sexual habits, or drug use and get away with it. So called "shock jocks" employ these mindless tactics to gain audience share in a pathetic attempt to seem edgy and relevant. It's a winning formula only because the average audience is filled with enough unsophisticated dolts who think they are rebels.
But making jokes about a person's race is considered the ultimate taboo. That will get your career tanked faster than anything. As I mentioned earlier, you can't even say "nigger" because it is considered so anathema, people will simply die if they hear the word, so you have to say "the n-word" instead.
Dave Chappelle is hilarious. His short lived "Dave Chappelle Show" poked fun at all races, but not without some measure of controversy. The difference was that because Chappelle was black, he could get away with it. No white person could of done what Chappelle did without Al Sharpton having a heart attack and demanding you bow down before him in supplication.
Sarah Silverman lacks the proper credentials on race to make the same kind of jokes, yet she does it--and gets away with it because of her extreme verbal giftedness. While playing the ironic, socially clueless, girl next door, she effortlessly two steps through the minefield of racial taboos, combining these with a comedy that is smart and dynamic. She is essentially a Garrison Keillor or Stephen Colbert--but with ten times the wit. Silverman makes it all seem so easy. It is only until you think about what she has managed to do with her work that you come to appreciate how verbally agile she actually is.
Even at the age of 21, reviewing her earlier work, there are periods where she spontaneously interacts with her audience, sparring with them and thinking on her feet. She manages to move from one subject to the next, playing with language like a cat with a caught mouse. It's the same sort of skill that would have made her an excellent trial lawyer, or, more artistically, a poet.
Silverman herself is liberal, not racist, and comes from a progressive minded family. In fact, her mother was a photographer for the liberal McGovern for president campaign back in the 1970's. But it's only through the looking up of her background that you discover these details. The great thing about Silverman is that you don't need to--she says one thing but you already know she means another. Dressed up like the devil, she's an angel in disguise.
Sunday, July 15, 2012
How To Fix the American Economy
It should be no surprise as to why the American economy is such a disaster for your average, working class person. Beginning in the 1970's, the Bretton-Woods system that regulated capital markets, prevented speculation on currency, and helped balance the markets was dismantled. Add to this the growth of information technology. Capital could be transferred from nation to nation in the flash of an instant. Trades began to occur by computer. The financial system grew larger than any one nation to control. Outsourcing, thanks to better communication technology, became feasible and profitable. It used to be that 90% of capital was used for productive purposes. Now, the tides have turned--90% of invested capital is used to speculate on currencies. This means no real value is being created. It's no wonder no real wealth in America is being created.
It is a large shell game. Unlike the 1930's, the new technology isn't going to go away. Blue collar jobs are going to China and if power remains in the hands of large multinational corporations, these jobs aren't coming back. White collar jobs are next. This means engineers, lawyers, scientists, and other professions are being outsourced to highly educated countries like India. After all, an email travels just as fast to India as it does to the office in Boston. Those with vocational skills are safe--at least temporarily. We still don't have robots to act as truck drivers, plumbers, and carpenters.
All of this is supposedly to increase "efficiency." The problem is that using fuel to ship materials half way across the planet just to exploit cheap labor is hardly efficient. It is cheaper, yes, but certainly not efficient. It was not efficient to mothball already existing factories in the U.S. to move them to China. But in our system, the costs, or "externalities," are not factored into the bottom line prospectus so these things don't matter. So, for example, if you build a factory and pollute a river that costs millions of dollars of public funds to clean up and costs millions of dollars in health care costs to families with children who develop leukemia, these don't count. So long as the next quarter's profits are good, then all is well. And if the CEO doesn't follow this formula, he or she gets fired. That's the way things work.
Because of the corrupt campaign system, only those politicians who cater to the needs of special interests with deep pockets get elected. This isn't going away. The sad thing is that the populace has become so indoctrinated, so docile, and so propagandized that the flood of special interest money works so well. It should be that people are educated enough to see through the obvious lies and deception contained in political advertising. Yet they don't. In school, children need to be taught critical thinking skills and should learn in civics and economics how marketing and propaganda work so they aren't deceived. Yet we are going in the opposite direction. Children are forced to take an endless series of mindless standardized tests which require them to memorize basic facts and perform other mundane tasks.
After having the benefit of working longer hours for lower pay, people are tired when they get home. They don't want to work at reading several newspapers, analyzing the news, and breaking things down. They want to relax. This means worrying more about what Kim Kardashian or Snooki are doing. Being tired also helps break down your defenses. So when the newest political advertisement for some jerk or another comes on, they are more easily sucked in.
Sometimes, there is a candidate that does in fact stand out and isn't totally eliminated by the system. Ron Paul would be a good example. He actually has integrity and is calling for real, meaningful reform. But the media have done their best to shut him out. On NPR, Don Siegel chided Paul for even exercising his right to run for President. Fox News is hardly more sympathetic. The media has a way of limiting the range of political discussion. They will select one supposedly "left" pundit and one supposedly "right" pundit and let them go at it. That is supposed to be "balanced" coverage. The system frowns upon having a wider area of discussion because this would be offensive to its advertisers, who don't want their entrenched interests compromised. The media themselves are corporations. So, for example, on Fox News you aren't going to see advocates of laws which break up the highly consolidated media industry. Rupert Murdoch would never allow that to happen, not with his ownership of multiple newspapers, TV channels, cable TV holdings, magazines, and everything else he owns. The same goes for MSNBC. You aren't going to be getting advocates of worker owned, collaborative corporations making their pitch on a station owned by General Electric.
Things could get better. We could have a surge in manufacturing here in America once again. We could make it happen if we worked together and organized. The problem is that we are competing against a massive, very well organized, and serious lobby that doesn't want to be challenged. It wants to keep the masses docile, uninformed, and in the dark. Overcoming this isn't easy. Thanks to social media like Twitter and Facebook, people in the Middle East organized to overcome some very brutal regimes. These technologies can help people get together in America as well. But sometimes it takes a disaster to get people mobilized. The financial meltdown was that opportunity a few years ago but it was squandered. Given the current direction of the country, it may take another crisis before enough people are angry enough to favor real change. In the mean time, we are heading toward Third World status, with a few rich and an overwhelming number of poor.
It is a large shell game. Unlike the 1930's, the new technology isn't going to go away. Blue collar jobs are going to China and if power remains in the hands of large multinational corporations, these jobs aren't coming back. White collar jobs are next. This means engineers, lawyers, scientists, and other professions are being outsourced to highly educated countries like India. After all, an email travels just as fast to India as it does to the office in Boston. Those with vocational skills are safe--at least temporarily. We still don't have robots to act as truck drivers, plumbers, and carpenters.
All of this is supposedly to increase "efficiency." The problem is that using fuel to ship materials half way across the planet just to exploit cheap labor is hardly efficient. It is cheaper, yes, but certainly not efficient. It was not efficient to mothball already existing factories in the U.S. to move them to China. But in our system, the costs, or "externalities," are not factored into the bottom line prospectus so these things don't matter. So, for example, if you build a factory and pollute a river that costs millions of dollars of public funds to clean up and costs millions of dollars in health care costs to families with children who develop leukemia, these don't count. So long as the next quarter's profits are good, then all is well. And if the CEO doesn't follow this formula, he or she gets fired. That's the way things work.
Because of the corrupt campaign system, only those politicians who cater to the needs of special interests with deep pockets get elected. This isn't going away. The sad thing is that the populace has become so indoctrinated, so docile, and so propagandized that the flood of special interest money works so well. It should be that people are educated enough to see through the obvious lies and deception contained in political advertising. Yet they don't. In school, children need to be taught critical thinking skills and should learn in civics and economics how marketing and propaganda work so they aren't deceived. Yet we are going in the opposite direction. Children are forced to take an endless series of mindless standardized tests which require them to memorize basic facts and perform other mundane tasks.
After having the benefit of working longer hours for lower pay, people are tired when they get home. They don't want to work at reading several newspapers, analyzing the news, and breaking things down. They want to relax. This means worrying more about what Kim Kardashian or Snooki are doing. Being tired also helps break down your defenses. So when the newest political advertisement for some jerk or another comes on, they are more easily sucked in.
Sometimes, there is a candidate that does in fact stand out and isn't totally eliminated by the system. Ron Paul would be a good example. He actually has integrity and is calling for real, meaningful reform. But the media have done their best to shut him out. On NPR, Don Siegel chided Paul for even exercising his right to run for President. Fox News is hardly more sympathetic. The media has a way of limiting the range of political discussion. They will select one supposedly "left" pundit and one supposedly "right" pundit and let them go at it. That is supposed to be "balanced" coverage. The system frowns upon having a wider area of discussion because this would be offensive to its advertisers, who don't want their entrenched interests compromised. The media themselves are corporations. So, for example, on Fox News you aren't going to see advocates of laws which break up the highly consolidated media industry. Rupert Murdoch would never allow that to happen, not with his ownership of multiple newspapers, TV channels, cable TV holdings, magazines, and everything else he owns. The same goes for MSNBC. You aren't going to be getting advocates of worker owned, collaborative corporations making their pitch on a station owned by General Electric.
Things could get better. We could have a surge in manufacturing here in America once again. We could make it happen if we worked together and organized. The problem is that we are competing against a massive, very well organized, and serious lobby that doesn't want to be challenged. It wants to keep the masses docile, uninformed, and in the dark. Overcoming this isn't easy. Thanks to social media like Twitter and Facebook, people in the Middle East organized to overcome some very brutal regimes. These technologies can help people get together in America as well. But sometimes it takes a disaster to get people mobilized. The financial meltdown was that opportunity a few years ago but it was squandered. Given the current direction of the country, it may take another crisis before enough people are angry enough to favor real change. In the mean time, we are heading toward Third World status, with a few rich and an overwhelming number of poor.
Monday, July 9, 2012
Embracing E-Readers
Originally a skeptic, it took me a long time to become convinced that an e-reader was a good idea. When you buy a paper book, you get to keep it, lend it, and do whatever you want with it. Because it is an analogue medium, it is readable by the human eye and doesn't require special software to access its content. There is a romantic feel about an old, luxurious library filled with knowledge contained within its ancient texts. My fear that one day paper books would become obsolete remains.
My initial distrust was over DRM technology. E-readers that use DRM technology limit what you can see if you change devices, or if you upgrade your equipment. As an iPod owner, I remember buying music off iTunes and then being unable to transfer my music to another computer or re-load it after my iPod crashed and needed reformatting. It was hell. Refusing to pay for the same thing twice, that was my final time buying music from iTunes. Apparently Apple has done away with its DRM technology, but the bitter taste in my mouth still hasn't gone away. If I am going to pay for a book, damnit, I expect to be able to read it forever.
When the Cleveland Public Library System started lending out e-books, my curiosity was piqued. I could get books electronically, eliminating my need to drive to the library. Plus, there would be no more late charges because the content would simply not be accessible anymore, so there wasn't anything to return. Another benefit was the access to free books, such as from Project Gutenberg, which provides access to thousands of out of copyright books. These include everything from classics to art to history. Not bad. No more waiting for library materials to arrive through the interlibrary loan system. The books were available for download immediately.
The final issue was my arthritis. Heavy books hurt my joints to hold for long periods. They are also hard on my back to carry. The other issue was space--I used to have piles and piles of books all over my bedroom and spread all over my bed, making a huge mess and a pain in the back if you accidentally jumped into bed on top of a rock-like hardcover. The e-reader can hold thousands of books with no mess, little weight, and tons of portability. So I decided to take the leap when the Kindle Touch arrived. Originally I liked it. However, the firmware for the device was garbage. It would lock up and nothing would undo it. I looked up the problem online and apparently other Kindle Touches suffered the same fate. The device would permanently brick itself. So it went back to the store. I traded it in for the Nook Simple Touch. This was the device I was looking for. The firmware was rock solid. No crashes whatsoever. In fact, I have used mine since last November and it has never crashed, not even once. The pages "turn" quickly with a swipe. The processor has no problem keeping up with the demands of reading a book comfortably. It has a micro SDHC slot so one can add extra memory. I bought a 32 gb card. This gives me enough space to hold over 64,000 books. That is essentially the same amount as a medium sized public library. Not bad. The text itself is crisp and the device is so lightweight it feels more comfortable to hold for long periods than a regular book.
My non-copyrighted books are in a non-DRM based epub format, which means I won't have DRM problems transferring materials in the future. The amount of paper saved because of this device is incredible. Instead of printing long Supreme Court cases while doing legal research, I can download my cases, save them in pdf format and then convert them to epub format and read them on my Nook. This means reams of paper saved. The environment is smiling right now, and so am I, thanks to my Nook.
I hate to say it, but I've become so used to the large, crisp text of my Nook that I actually prefer it to my paper books. I have to admit I've become a full convert to the e-reader revolution. Now, I get upset when forced to read "regular" books. I hope the old, beautiful libraries aren't doomed...
Other Places to Get E-Books
Open Library
Internet Archive
Google Books
Clevnet E-Media Library Collection
My initial distrust was over DRM technology. E-readers that use DRM technology limit what you can see if you change devices, or if you upgrade your equipment. As an iPod owner, I remember buying music off iTunes and then being unable to transfer my music to another computer or re-load it after my iPod crashed and needed reformatting. It was hell. Refusing to pay for the same thing twice, that was my final time buying music from iTunes. Apparently Apple has done away with its DRM technology, but the bitter taste in my mouth still hasn't gone away. If I am going to pay for a book, damnit, I expect to be able to read it forever.
When the Cleveland Public Library System started lending out e-books, my curiosity was piqued. I could get books electronically, eliminating my need to drive to the library. Plus, there would be no more late charges because the content would simply not be accessible anymore, so there wasn't anything to return. Another benefit was the access to free books, such as from Project Gutenberg, which provides access to thousands of out of copyright books. These include everything from classics to art to history. Not bad. No more waiting for library materials to arrive through the interlibrary loan system. The books were available for download immediately.
The final issue was my arthritis. Heavy books hurt my joints to hold for long periods. They are also hard on my back to carry. The other issue was space--I used to have piles and piles of books all over my bedroom and spread all over my bed, making a huge mess and a pain in the back if you accidentally jumped into bed on top of a rock-like hardcover. The e-reader can hold thousands of books with no mess, little weight, and tons of portability. So I decided to take the leap when the Kindle Touch arrived. Originally I liked it. However, the firmware for the device was garbage. It would lock up and nothing would undo it. I looked up the problem online and apparently other Kindle Touches suffered the same fate. The device would permanently brick itself. So it went back to the store. I traded it in for the Nook Simple Touch. This was the device I was looking for. The firmware was rock solid. No crashes whatsoever. In fact, I have used mine since last November and it has never crashed, not even once. The pages "turn" quickly with a swipe. The processor has no problem keeping up with the demands of reading a book comfortably. It has a micro SDHC slot so one can add extra memory. I bought a 32 gb card. This gives me enough space to hold over 64,000 books. That is essentially the same amount as a medium sized public library. Not bad. The text itself is crisp and the device is so lightweight it feels more comfortable to hold for long periods than a regular book.
My non-copyrighted books are in a non-DRM based epub format, which means I won't have DRM problems transferring materials in the future. The amount of paper saved because of this device is incredible. Instead of printing long Supreme Court cases while doing legal research, I can download my cases, save them in pdf format and then convert them to epub format and read them on my Nook. This means reams of paper saved. The environment is smiling right now, and so am I, thanks to my Nook.
I hate to say it, but I've become so used to the large, crisp text of my Nook that I actually prefer it to my paper books. I have to admit I've become a full convert to the e-reader revolution. Now, I get upset when forced to read "regular" books. I hope the old, beautiful libraries aren't doomed...
Other Places to Get E-Books
Open Library
Internet Archive
Google Books
Clevnet E-Media Library Collection
Saturday, June 30, 2012
Trusting the Media
When I was in graduate school, they taught us how to do academic research. Up until this point, using secondary sources, such as the Encyclopedia Britannica and popular magazine articles--so long as cited when used--were fair game for writing research. We were taught that primary sources were more important. Further, secondary sources can be used, but these should be double checked for accuracy and reliability of authorship. I'm not sure why these were such breakthroughs for me, but they were.
These points were brought home recently while learning about the Supreme Court opinion concerning the Affordable Care Act. Initially, the media reported its prediction of how the case would hash out given the tone of the arguments before the Court. The consensus was that the ACA wouldn't pass because of the way the questioning went. A few days ago I listened to the audio of the hearings for myself. It was very clear from the arguments that there was no clear direction the Court was headed. It could have went either way. A first year law student could have told you that, but apparently, the legal scholars interviewed by the media had a different opinion.
Next, we have the ACA decision itself. Coverage by the media was horrendous. At first, CNN and Fox News literally reported that the ACA was overturned. They weren't even in the ballpark. Then, they amended their coverage, but this new "reporting" was hardly better. Just as President Obama said that we must focus not on the political horse race concerning this decision and be mindful of what this means for the uncovered 30 million Americans who will now have access to health care, the media immediately reported the decision, focusing only on the political implications of the decision. Whether or not the decision was a good one for the vast majority of Americans, what it would mean for future federal law, Federalism, and other issues weren't reported. Apparently, these substantial, non superficial matters don't deserve reporting. The most startling difference was the comparison between National Public Radio and Fox News. NPR is supposed to be unbiased, highbrow reporting. After reviewing both pieces, the only difference between the two was that NPR didn't use it as an opportunity to bash Obama. Neither one reported anything substantial.
In fact, to get an idea of what the Supreme Court decision actually meant, I had to read the decision myself. Having gone to law school and taken Constitutional law, I have some background in these things and could do it. But what about your average citizen, one who hasn't gone to law school? The media and its failure to properly report the news is a real detriment to our democracy. In fact, its failure to serve its institutional role as an informer is actually helping to undermine real democracy. A citizenry left in the dark cannot meaningfully participate in the government. That is why our country is so fucked up now.
Having read the decision, and having given the matter a few days, you would think the news coverage of the events would have improved. Maybe some real analysis would be reported. While things have improved somewhat, most of the coverage, even by major periodicals like the New York Times, was still sparse given the real "meat" of the decision. Again, the focus remains whether or not this is good for Obama and what Romney has to say about it. Perhaps this is the point--by concentrating on the horse race between the two candidates, we can hide the real issues. We don't get to ask the real questions about what the Commerce Clause and the Spending Power are, or what the implications of this decision will mean for real people.
This is exactly the way the system likes it.
Supreme Court opinion re: Affordable Care Act
Supreme Court oral arguments re: Affordable Care Act
These points were brought home recently while learning about the Supreme Court opinion concerning the Affordable Care Act. Initially, the media reported its prediction of how the case would hash out given the tone of the arguments before the Court. The consensus was that the ACA wouldn't pass because of the way the questioning went. A few days ago I listened to the audio of the hearings for myself. It was very clear from the arguments that there was no clear direction the Court was headed. It could have went either way. A first year law student could have told you that, but apparently, the legal scholars interviewed by the media had a different opinion.
Next, we have the ACA decision itself. Coverage by the media was horrendous. At first, CNN and Fox News literally reported that the ACA was overturned. They weren't even in the ballpark. Then, they amended their coverage, but this new "reporting" was hardly better. Just as President Obama said that we must focus not on the political horse race concerning this decision and be mindful of what this means for the uncovered 30 million Americans who will now have access to health care, the media immediately reported the decision, focusing only on the political implications of the decision. Whether or not the decision was a good one for the vast majority of Americans, what it would mean for future federal law, Federalism, and other issues weren't reported. Apparently, these substantial, non superficial matters don't deserve reporting. The most startling difference was the comparison between National Public Radio and Fox News. NPR is supposed to be unbiased, highbrow reporting. After reviewing both pieces, the only difference between the two was that NPR didn't use it as an opportunity to bash Obama. Neither one reported anything substantial.
In fact, to get an idea of what the Supreme Court decision actually meant, I had to read the decision myself. Having gone to law school and taken Constitutional law, I have some background in these things and could do it. But what about your average citizen, one who hasn't gone to law school? The media and its failure to properly report the news is a real detriment to our democracy. In fact, its failure to serve its institutional role as an informer is actually helping to undermine real democracy. A citizenry left in the dark cannot meaningfully participate in the government. That is why our country is so fucked up now.
Having read the decision, and having given the matter a few days, you would think the news coverage of the events would have improved. Maybe some real analysis would be reported. While things have improved somewhat, most of the coverage, even by major periodicals like the New York Times, was still sparse given the real "meat" of the decision. Again, the focus remains whether or not this is good for Obama and what Romney has to say about it. Perhaps this is the point--by concentrating on the horse race between the two candidates, we can hide the real issues. We don't get to ask the real questions about what the Commerce Clause and the Spending Power are, or what the implications of this decision will mean for real people.
This is exactly the way the system likes it.
Supreme Court opinion re: Affordable Care Act
Supreme Court oral arguments re: Affordable Care Act
Monday, June 25, 2012
Schools Aren't Businesses
The problem is that schools cannot be run like businesses because they don't produce commodities. Learning is not similar to widget making. Schools are challenged with training all children, some of whom have serious learning disorders, home problems, and other behavioral issues that keep them from learning. Blaming teachers is not the proper path to take. Yet this is the route we have gone so far. Teachers are forced to work not with the best materials, but with frail human beings. The truth is that learning is not efficient, immediately profitable, or subject to "bottom lines", despite our best efforts to measure the immeasurable. You mention that business is more "efficient" than government with an excess of bureaucrats. Actually, business in this respect is completely inefficient. Corporate CEOs make salaries in the millions, and employ armies of middle managers at high salaries. This is hardly efficient. In fact, the only reason corporations now seem efficient is because they are outsourcing jobs, which cannot be done in the teaching profession. The costs are externalized to the populace while the profits are privatized. "School choice" and vouchers increase competition and reduce cooperation. Cooperation is about sharing ideas and learning. Competition results in reduced teaching outcomes. Vouchers and school choice are really just the means used by neo-conservatives to weaken the public education system, which is already taking a beating by tax reductions and tuition increases at the college level. Our public education system is being crushed. The rich don't care, because they have money to send their children to private schools. The last thing we need is less schooling in the name of "choice." When schools aren't measuring up, we need an increase in democracy--namely, the involvement of the community, not more private schools and the defunding of the public school system, which makes the matter worse, not better.
Friday, June 15, 2012
Free Market Fundamentalism
Once again in the presidential campaign, the so-called conservatives keep clamoring for the virtues of the "free market." Apparently, the capitalist marketplace--you know, the one that brought us the Great Depression, the housing bubble, and our failed privatized health care system--is some paragon of virtue and goodness that will bring us earthly utopia. Ever since the Great Depression, no one has taken laissez faire capitalism seriously. It has been understood that a mixed system of government regulation of the market has helped balance a system that would otherwise move from boom to bust and cause great devastation in its wake. The deregulation of the Reagan and Bush years caused a serious rollback of health and safety protections, along with social spending cuts that helped keep childhood poverty and hunger at Third World levels. Not to be outdone by our archenemy Cuba, our health and mortality outcomes are much worse, even though our economy is massive compared to that tiny, impoverished island.
Now it appears that our corporate bought Supreme Court might overturn the minimal protections to the populace at the hands of the inefficient health insurance industry passed in the Affordable Care Act. Another step backward for a country that is as far Right as it gets. Part of the problem is that many Americans have a warped sense of freedom. This shows the current media supported indoctrination system works well. People believe that if they have to pay taxes, purchase insurance, or if an employer has to provide them minimal health coverage, that somehow this violates their "freedoms." Freedom means nothing if you lack power. If someone else has the "freedom" to take advantage of me, that reduces my freedom--it doesn't enlarge it. When corporations are declared "people" and have the same rights as people, they actually end up with more rights and can become bullies. A corporation lives forever, it can be in several places at once, cannot be easily killed, and can aggregate resources at a level that no individual could compete with. This isn't a person--this is what we call a god. The new American gods have the right to buy elections, take away our jobs, move production overseas, and dictate policy. By virtue of their strength, they can take advantage of those who have the same freedoms as them. After all, an indentured servant and a chattel slave are practically in the same position.
Much of this has to do with our society becoming very atomized. Trade unions, churches, and civic organizations used to be much stronger. These organizations proved to be a strong countervailing force against the corporate elite and their public relations industry. These organizations have been decimated over the last 30 years. Add to this the Apple ethic---the myth that what you buy is an expression of who you are as a person. If I buy Apple, for example, I am someone who supposedly "thinks different." Judging by their sales figures, everyone in America must be thinking differently lately. Companies will have us believe that our true selves are expressed not through civic engagement, creative activities, or our personalities, but through what we consume. As people become more materialistic and less other-focused, they also become more individualistic and more selfish. This helps feed the warped sense of freedom that Republicans like to peddle for their own interests. In actuality, private corporations and the free market are actually more tyrannical and anti-democratic than government. A corporation is a hierarchical, privately held tyranny. It is not transparent. Management makes the decisions on its own. There is almost no accountability to the public. The government, by comparison, is much freer. At least the government is accountable to the people. It is more democratic. If we don't like what Exxon or GM does, that's our problem.
If people think business is efficient, then try to call the telephone company, your cell phone carrier, or your health insurance company and solve a problem. If you get a human on the telephone, you are lucky. Of course, once you do, they are going to transfer you ten times because no one is empowered enough to solve your customer service problem. The entire system is designed to only solve a very narrow range of issues. Anything beyond that, and you are fucked. And why shouldn't you be? It is more cost effective for them to use computers and Indians who can't speak English than to hire American workers who are permitted to solve problems. The costs are externalized to you. Never mind if you have to wait on the telephone for 3 hours to get a response, or whether your time and effort is wasted. That doesn't influence the corporate bottom line.
Those opposed to health care reform say they think the government shouldn't intrude and the market should determine health care distribution. The problem is that the market is too inefficient to deal with the human side of the health care crisis. As human beings, we don't deny emergency care to those who cannot afford to pay because we believe in the value of human life. The same goes for those with preexisting conditions. Republicans claim that high risk pools will lead to the reduction of health care costs because insurers will compete for the business of sick people. This proposition is laughable. The reason insurers won't cover those with serious illnesses is because it costs them too much money. They aren't going to compete to cover massive expenses for those with cancer, AIDS, and heart disease. This means the sickest of people won't get the proper preventative and maintenance care that will lead them to have less costs in the future. So instead of giving $1 test strips to diabetics, we'll wait until they will need dialysis and then put them on government assistance. Or instead of giving anti-hypertensive drugs to those with high blood pressure, we will wait until they have a stroke and require life-long nursing home care. That's "personal responsibility" and "market discipline." The good old invisible hand at work. The same goes for the purchase of healthcare mandate. People claim their freedom is impeded if they have to purchase health insurance. But isn't your freedom hindered anyway? How free are you if you have to stay at a shitty job that you hate just because your employer pays for your health insurance because you cannot afford health insurance on your own? What if we had single payer health coverage--then people could actually start their own small businesses, go back to school, or stay home to raise their children. But Republicans don't care about these values. If they did, they wouldn't be fighting against the public option or the single payer option.
Or take Social Security. It is entirely self-funded and incredibly efficient. Administrative costs are less than 3%. It helps the old and disabled have a minimal income so they don't starve. With the right reforms, it could continue indefinitely. But Republicans have us believe that it is bankrupting this country and needs to be privatized. When the next market crash comes and millions of old and disabled people are left without the basics of subsistence, well, that's their problem. They have to rely on private charity. No nanny state for those entitled parapalegics demanding basic care. They also need to learn personal responsibility and the values of market discipline.
America is a pretty fucked up place. While we do have some real freedom in the area of free speech compared with very oppressive countries like France or Red China, we have some very backward notions of freedom when it comes to our sense of economic social justice. It is surprising how many working class adults vote against their interests on a regular basis, all out of a warped sense of freedom and morality. Maybe one day, when this country has become a Third World type nation, with the top few percent living in walled cities and the rest living in total squalor, they will wake up--but I highly doubt it. Once they can't afford the newest iGadget from Apple, then the true social reforms will begin.
Now it appears that our corporate bought Supreme Court might overturn the minimal protections to the populace at the hands of the inefficient health insurance industry passed in the Affordable Care Act. Another step backward for a country that is as far Right as it gets. Part of the problem is that many Americans have a warped sense of freedom. This shows the current media supported indoctrination system works well. People believe that if they have to pay taxes, purchase insurance, or if an employer has to provide them minimal health coverage, that somehow this violates their "freedoms." Freedom means nothing if you lack power. If someone else has the "freedom" to take advantage of me, that reduces my freedom--it doesn't enlarge it. When corporations are declared "people" and have the same rights as people, they actually end up with more rights and can become bullies. A corporation lives forever, it can be in several places at once, cannot be easily killed, and can aggregate resources at a level that no individual could compete with. This isn't a person--this is what we call a god. The new American gods have the right to buy elections, take away our jobs, move production overseas, and dictate policy. By virtue of their strength, they can take advantage of those who have the same freedoms as them. After all, an indentured servant and a chattel slave are practically in the same position.
Much of this has to do with our society becoming very atomized. Trade unions, churches, and civic organizations used to be much stronger. These organizations proved to be a strong countervailing force against the corporate elite and their public relations industry. These organizations have been decimated over the last 30 years. Add to this the Apple ethic---the myth that what you buy is an expression of who you are as a person. If I buy Apple, for example, I am someone who supposedly "thinks different." Judging by their sales figures, everyone in America must be thinking differently lately. Companies will have us believe that our true selves are expressed not through civic engagement, creative activities, or our personalities, but through what we consume. As people become more materialistic and less other-focused, they also become more individualistic and more selfish. This helps feed the warped sense of freedom that Republicans like to peddle for their own interests. In actuality, private corporations and the free market are actually more tyrannical and anti-democratic than government. A corporation is a hierarchical, privately held tyranny. It is not transparent. Management makes the decisions on its own. There is almost no accountability to the public. The government, by comparison, is much freer. At least the government is accountable to the people. It is more democratic. If we don't like what Exxon or GM does, that's our problem.
If people think business is efficient, then try to call the telephone company, your cell phone carrier, or your health insurance company and solve a problem. If you get a human on the telephone, you are lucky. Of course, once you do, they are going to transfer you ten times because no one is empowered enough to solve your customer service problem. The entire system is designed to only solve a very narrow range of issues. Anything beyond that, and you are fucked. And why shouldn't you be? It is more cost effective for them to use computers and Indians who can't speak English than to hire American workers who are permitted to solve problems. The costs are externalized to you. Never mind if you have to wait on the telephone for 3 hours to get a response, or whether your time and effort is wasted. That doesn't influence the corporate bottom line.
Those opposed to health care reform say they think the government shouldn't intrude and the market should determine health care distribution. The problem is that the market is too inefficient to deal with the human side of the health care crisis. As human beings, we don't deny emergency care to those who cannot afford to pay because we believe in the value of human life. The same goes for those with preexisting conditions. Republicans claim that high risk pools will lead to the reduction of health care costs because insurers will compete for the business of sick people. This proposition is laughable. The reason insurers won't cover those with serious illnesses is because it costs them too much money. They aren't going to compete to cover massive expenses for those with cancer, AIDS, and heart disease. This means the sickest of people won't get the proper preventative and maintenance care that will lead them to have less costs in the future. So instead of giving $1 test strips to diabetics, we'll wait until they will need dialysis and then put them on government assistance. Or instead of giving anti-hypertensive drugs to those with high blood pressure, we will wait until they have a stroke and require life-long nursing home care. That's "personal responsibility" and "market discipline." The good old invisible hand at work. The same goes for the purchase of healthcare mandate. People claim their freedom is impeded if they have to purchase health insurance. But isn't your freedom hindered anyway? How free are you if you have to stay at a shitty job that you hate just because your employer pays for your health insurance because you cannot afford health insurance on your own? What if we had single payer health coverage--then people could actually start their own small businesses, go back to school, or stay home to raise their children. But Republicans don't care about these values. If they did, they wouldn't be fighting against the public option or the single payer option.
Or take Social Security. It is entirely self-funded and incredibly efficient. Administrative costs are less than 3%. It helps the old and disabled have a minimal income so they don't starve. With the right reforms, it could continue indefinitely. But Republicans have us believe that it is bankrupting this country and needs to be privatized. When the next market crash comes and millions of old and disabled people are left without the basics of subsistence, well, that's their problem. They have to rely on private charity. No nanny state for those entitled parapalegics demanding basic care. They also need to learn personal responsibility and the values of market discipline.
America is a pretty fucked up place. While we do have some real freedom in the area of free speech compared with very oppressive countries like France or Red China, we have some very backward notions of freedom when it comes to our sense of economic social justice. It is surprising how many working class adults vote against their interests on a regular basis, all out of a warped sense of freedom and morality. Maybe one day, when this country has become a Third World type nation, with the top few percent living in walled cities and the rest living in total squalor, they will wake up--but I highly doubt it. Once they can't afford the newest iGadget from Apple, then the true social reforms will begin.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)