Proletariat Uprising Anyone?

In America, we tend to soil the disenfranchised in their own sick (so to speak), then blame them for their own problems.  My solution: guerrilla war on the rich (note, that was sarcasm, I cannot be held responsible for any subsequent class warfare).

We capitalists hurt everyone in our way.  One need only look at the inhabitants of Appalachia (including Obama's comments about them).  On a recent Colbert Report (the clip is below), mountain top mining was discussed.  Essentially what is done is instead of sending miners into find coal, mountains are just blown up to get directly to the coal.  Not only does this contaminate the water and air, killing wildlife, but it also makes the people who live there sick.  Why don't they use their coal miner checks.  Mountain top removal requires far fewer workers, so they are left without jobs.  essentially we have poisoned these people's habitat, poisoned them, and taken away their jobs.

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Coal Comfort - Margaret Palmer
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Economy

Another example of capitolist greed: in 1965, the average CEO made 24 times more than a factory worker.  In 2005, the average CEO made 262 times the average factory worker.  Are CEOs in 2005 working harder than those in 2006; probably not.  Before you think; ah, there are larger companies, hence more powerful CEOs in 2005.  Yes, but the survey only looked at, "U.S. CEOs in major companies."  Though it does not specify what is a major company, it is clear that the growing size of companies has a minimal effect on this.  What is clear is that the little man is yet again getting the short end of the stick.

It seems that capitolism is not working as well as we always wished.  It looks to be turning into feudalism, which we certainly don't want.  An unobstructed market lead to a huge crash and the only thing that saved us was the government buying the major banks (a tenent of socialism).  Glenn Beck seems so afraid of socialism.  I know why; he is part of the tiny percent of Americans that would not benefit from it.  I don't think that socialism would work in America, but surely some steps towards government control of the economy seem sensible.

An Elected Figurhead?

Last night's State of the Union was chock full of rhetoric that he may or may not live up to.  Most of what he was saying was not that amazing or precedent shattering, yet it stirred up a great deal of emotions within me.  Then I remembered a Supernews clip below.

Despite the fact that this clip is poking fun at Obama's stoic and likable demeanor (and its effect throughout the world), I think there may be more to it.  His beautiful speeches and brand have made America (and our interests) more popular across the world. 

This was important.

Now he is using the same great public speaking ability to restore Americans' confidence in politics, the government, and the economy.

This is important.

It just all makes me wonder, is he anything more than a relatively powerless figurehead?

A club with 700 questions

I have never been a fan of the 700 club.  I will admit, sometimes I will watch it to try to understand Fundamentalist Christianity.  I still don't get it.

I have a clip above of Pat Robertson saying something rather controversial about the Haitian disaster.  After the worst natural disaster to hit the poorest country in our hemisphere, one would expect the host of a christian TV show like Pat Robertson to support the mainly Catholic Haiti.  He didn't.  In fact, he said that the Haitians brought this upon themselves, 'true story,' after a pact with the devil.

Despite the lack of proper citations, many of his viewers take what he says to heart. Why? well, Pat Robertson claims that he is a deity (which I don't understand to begin with) who has intense conversations with god.  For instance, he has a part in the show where he will shout out something like, "a woman in Texas has just been healed of her epilepsy while watching this show."

If anyone who didn't claim to be connected to god made a claim like Robertson's, they would have no public outlet supplied to them. For instance Don Imus lost his media outlet after calling black women's basketball players at Rutgers, "nappy-headed hos." Fundamentalist Christians seem to be the only exception.  Why does their audience let them get away with anything they want just by claiming the will of god.   It reminds me of the famous bible quote, "and thou shalt exult in his name, by blaming 9/11 on abortionists and homosexuals and telling impoverished, disaster stricken countries that they made a deal with the devil."

Yeah Communism

After I watched the TED conference clip that Bolos showed us yesterday, I could not remember where I had heard the name Barry Schwartz before.  I got home and discovered that I had read his book, The Cost of Living: Market Freedom and How it Erodes the Best Things in Life. 

His overall argument that we saw a piece of was that people have bought into the idea that free market principles work

He argues that markets do not work efficiently if people are willing to do anything to each other.  When Adam Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations, he didn't expect the economy to become as faceless as it is today.  He said, in book he wrote  a few years earlier The Theory of Moral Sentiment, that what makes the market work is that there is a set of empathy.  For instance, the butcher of the town can charge whatever he wants, competition will regulate that, but he won't sell poisoned meat. 

People have seen Adam Smith's argument and said, "whatever we do for ourselves helps the economy." The problem is that this belief has changed the way that humans think about the way they should act.  We have become less empathetic and the market will not work effectively in this manner. He wrote this book before the collapse, so it seems he was right.

It seems scary that one man's theory has changed so much about human empathy, but if you read his book it actually makes sense.  I've always believed that capitalism was flawed, but I don't know if this is the solution.

Blame The Cars!

In my recent post, "A Driving Narrative," I explored expensive cars and why people buy them.  Now, those who want to buy a car face a greater enemy than cost.  They must deal with the environment.  In fact, there are many mistakes that people make while looking to reduce their carbon footprint.
 
The first mistake that people make is to buy into the negative narratives associated with a car.  How many times have you heard that Hummers are the ultimate in fuel inefficiencies.  In fact, the massive  truck-engined H1 and V8 H2 are hideously terrible for the environment.  In fact (little known fact) they literally club baby seals.  The H3, on the other hand, is not as inefficient as you may think. The redneck gas-burnin' Hummer gets 15 city, 19 highway.  That's not great.  But then again, the Hummers numbers are nearly identical to the elitist, Volvo XC90.  Put that in your latte and steam it.

On top of that, look at more than just your car for ways to be environmentally friendly.  For every pound of red meat that you eat, you contribute about 19 pounds of carbon dioxide to the environment.  A staggering number when you consider that an average is usually about 1/3 of a pound per mile.

How many self righteous Prius drivers know that the batteries in hybrids make their cars (over their entire lifetime) more damaging to the environment than many classic gas engines (including a hummer)?  How many people who drive electric cars seem to forget that most electricity in the US is made from polluting coal plants?  How many Prius drivers even use energy efficient light bulbs?  I am willing to bet very few.  It is much easier to sleep at night telling yourself that you aren't contributing to global warming because you drive a hybrid.  Forget about the complex global interlinking of economies and technologies, that Prius badge removes you from all guilt.

"What, your car is propelled by gasoline, wait there as I sharpen my pitchfork and get an angry mob together."

24 to Save Us All...

Well, the time of 24 is upon us again.  I've never been a big fan of the show, but I have a friend who certainly is.  His whole family gets together every time a new episode airs and watches the show together.  It is such a cultural phenomenon that every time another friend of mine hears "beep-- beep-- beep," he thinks of 24.

The characters are flat and rather devoid of any sort of growth.  The plot is predictable and full of holes.  The cinematography and special effects aren't as good as similar movies.  Why do so many people flock to TV screens to watch this?

We love the simplicity of it.  There is nothing like White, Christian Jack Bauer taking down the terrorists.  I can't say this show does much to help any ACLU member's cause.  If I believed in conspiracies, I'd say that this show was made with the simple goal of dehumanizing terrorists.  It makes torture cool and portrays nearly every Middle Easterner as an evil, heartless anti-American.

Americans like to think they are superior and that there are simple solutions to complex problems.  Terrorism is caused by fanatics who believe that they are fighting a holy war in the name of Allah.  People lured into terrorist regimes are lower class and disenfranchised (often by America's own economic policies with the Middle East).  I think the reason Americans love 24 is that it gives us the chance to think we are the only good in a world full of psychopathic terrorists.  It gives us a chance to think that one guy with a gun can save us all (forget the hundreds of civilians he seems to kill every day).

Let's be honest, nothing says American pride like archetypal, oversimplified killing of the foreign looking type.  America, you should be so proud.

Let's forget politics... for now

I was watching Face the Nation last Sunday and George Bush said, "now's not the time to focus on politics, it’s time to focus on helping people," about his joint venture charity with Bill Clinton for Haiti relief.

I was awestruck by this statement.  Shouldn't every moment be a moment when helping people comes before politics.  I just don't understand why our country, and indeed all countries, are so steeped in political battles that help no one.  I guess what makes me angriest, is the way that Bush says it so plainly and no one says anything to dispute his statement.

Why do we need a disaster in another country to put helping people before our petty disagreements.  Though I am aware that arguing against relief in Haiti would be daft, I am willing to bet that health care reform would save as many lives as relief in Haiti.

Haitians are not the only ones who need help.  Why, then, do we unquestioningly (except Rush Limbaugh) feel the need to help the Haitians but not our neighbors?  The answer is simple.  Which is going to be a more frightening and compelling news story, the story about a man dying slowly and quietly from unnoticed cancer or a boy who had to throw his father's remains in a mass grave after he died from starvation?  I think the boy is much more compelling, though they are both about two preventable deaths.

The media and senators choose to help the Haitians so unquestioningly because they would look like psychopaths if they didn't.   It is much easier to ignore a silent killer than a natural disaster that leaves a city flattened.

New Mickey Means No More War?

I read recently that Mickey will be getting a makeover. Mickey is really an integral part of The Disney Corporation, and it seems like a good enough idea to change him.  My problem is with the way that he is being changed.  It is all starting with a video game, called Epic Mickey, which will portray America's favorite cartoon mouse as a trouble making prankster. 

At first I thought, "this reflects our societies growing dependence on violence and it is rearing its ugly head at a younger age."  Then, I realized I was wrong.  The reason for this new Mickey game and (in a bout of circular logic) the result of this new Mickey game is the decrease of violent tendencies in American children. 

Let me explain.  My friends 4th grade brother got in a scuttle with another student.  They invited both children, all four parents, the teacher, the principle and a counselor in to deal with the fight.  Eventually, in a moment of horribly corny symbolism, the two signed a peace treaty (I'm not joking).

Fifty years ago, this would most certainly not have happened (though I wasn't alive so I can't know for sure). Because kids are continually being told that violence is bad (a moral that I definitely can't argue with)  they need a place to exercise their 'primal urges.'  In walks the video game, guns (literally) a' blazing.  Its also got a machete, four daggers, grenades, an AK-47, an assault rifle, and a few nukes for good measure, but I digress.

Basically, all the parents who complain that video games are making their children too violent, (at least in a passive area like the North Shore) shouldn't.  So it seems COD Modern Warfare's controversial airport terrorist scene is decreasing violent tendencies... ok, probably not.

A Driving Narrative

I have been trying to find ways to talk about cars in this blog for a long time and I have finally found a reason.  Cars undoubtedly sell stories along with their marque.  In fact, the other day, as my mother test drove a Jaguar, they told her that she would be buying into a lifestyle, not a car.

That is a big claim.  Is there anything other than a sense of superiority that a nice car will give you.  Well, some researchers in Canada believe that you get more than the brand in an expensive car, according to a recent study they conducted.  I know what you are thinking, "do they have cars in Canada?"  Well they do, and they put men in a Porsche 911 cabrio (costing around $100,000) and a Toyota Camry (costing about $20,000).  The mens' testosterone levels rose in the 911, but didn't in the Camry. 

So, it seems that an expensive car will, uhhhhh, stimulate a man.  Does this excitement come from the knowledge that you are driving an expensive car or the superior road feel and acceleration.  I don't know.  As someone who loves cars, I like to think that people feel excited about expensive cars because they are great to drive, but, honestly, there are a lot of expensive cars that aren't very good.  People buy them anyway.  Why do people buy lexus RXs? There is a simple answer: they like a sense of superiority but for some reason don't want to enjoy an 'ultimate driving machine'.

Note: look at the photos I chose of each car; the Camry is in a subrban driveway while the 911 is moving at a pace in the triple digits on a track.

Christians Who Don't understand Christianity

I found a link to this intriguing video with an interesting and thought out debate (note: the aforementioned is sarcasm) about healthcare on the Huffington Post which unfortunately cannot be embedded.

It isn't just that this video is rather funny, but that this simply ignorant connection that she tries to make between Christianity and health care is not at all supported by any evidence anywhere. 

It really bothers me when people make a simple policy debate, about something like health care, and turn it into something not only unrelated but something that is sure to get like-minded people angry.  I was talking to a man on a ski lift over break and he mentioned that Obama was a socialist.  Intrigued, I asked him for his reasoning.  He said that he had a socialist agenda, which is not very substantive.  I pressed on-- I mentioned that many famous capitalists, like Warren Buffet, support Obama.  He had nothing to say to support his argument.  He was merely repeating what other angry Christians had said about Obama.

I guess what really gets to me about the clip is the way that this woman merely spouts buzz-words that are sure to get people riled up.  People hear "genocide" and "killing old people" and "under god" and they get angry.  Fictional genocide doesn't make me  angry, a woman turning her Christmas lights off because of a bill that will drastically cut down government waste by streamlining health care, as well as provide less fortunate Americans with the chance to live makes me angry.  Even more bothersome is that if 'Bunny' would look at the facts of the bill, she would realize it is supported by her religion.  If I recall correctly, Jesus was big on helping the poor and curing the sick.

Check out this nun on The O'reilly Factor who seems to be the only religious person who can see the truth about her religion.  She even laughs at Bill O'reilly!

Try your best... and Fail

History books are chock full of people trying to further society, but, in my opinion, hindering human development.  A paramount example is Charles Darwin, who, as we all know, came up with the theory of evolution.  He was arguably partly responsible for the holocaust.

Though I don't like to assume that any group or action is inherently evil, I will assume that the Nazis were evil, though you can check out my posts, The Face of Evil, and A Society of Evil Faces for my views of "true evil."  In assuming that the Nazis were evil, I can take the point that Darwins important scientific discovery actually caused genocide.

Nazis believed that they were aiding evolution by killing "inferior" humans in order for those who are superior to succeed.  I can't help but wonder what Darwin would have thought of this.  I think the reason that this theory caused so much horror (Nazism and American Eugenics) was that, to some, it disproved god (though I am not sure if I agree with that).  That is the problem with science; it gives us power over our lives in a way that humans have never felt before.  As an agnostic, I have had to accept a series of inherent principles of good and wrong.  Without them, I would be lost.  It terrifies me that other atheists and agnostics (arguably including Hitler) may not subscribe to the same idea of right and wrong.