Dedicated to offering a unique and thoughtful perspective on what's going on in politics, pop culture, science, art, and current events. The One About... Definitely not more of "that"!
Awww. Look at Corporate America sleeping. Isn't it just the cutest lil' L'Enfant terrible you've ever seen. And what does our dear sweet CA dream of while it sleeps? Why of better days of course. Days when those of us in the working classes knew our place and kept ourselves there,
lest we attract the wrath of our betters. The kind of times spoken of by various articles and books about servants in Victorian era England.
Here is an example of some of the rules that servants had to follow
1:When being spoken to, stand still, keeping your hands quiet, and always look at the person speaking.
2:Never let your voice be heard by the ladies and gentlemen of the household, unless they have spoken directly to you a question or statement which requires a response, at which time, speak as little as possible.
3:In the presence of your mistress, never speak to another servant or person of your own rank, or to a child, unless only for necessity, and then as little as possible and as quietly as possible.
4:Never begin to talk to the ladies or gentlemen, unless to deliver a message or to ask a necessary question, and then, do it in as few words as possible.
5:Whenever possible, items that have been dropped, such as spectacles or handkerchiefs, and other small items, should be returned to their owners on a salver.
6:Always respond when you have received an order, and always use the proper address: "Sir", "Ma'am", "Miss" or "Mrs," as the case may be.
7:Never offer your opinion to your employer.
8:Always "give room": That is, if you encounter one of your betters in the house or on the stairs, you are to make yourself as invisible as possible, turning yourself toward the wall and averting your eyes.
9:Except in reply to a salutation offered, never say "good morning" or "good night" to your employer.
10:If you are required to walk with a lady or gentleman in order to carry packages, or for any other reason, always keep a few paces back.
11:You are expected to be punctual to your place at mealtime.
12:You shall not receive any Relative, Visitor, or Friend into the house, nor shall you introduce any person into the Servant's Hall, without the consent of the Butler or Housekeeper.
13:Followers are strictly forbidden. Any member of the female staff who is found to be fraternizing shall be immediately dismissed.
14:Expect that any breakages or damages in the house shall be deducted from your wages.
Ah what glorious times. When men were Men, women were quiescent sperm receptacles and baby producing machines, and the working class knew better than to look their Betters in the eye lest they receive a caning they shan't soon forget.
Then along came that pesky Social Progressivism. Uppity sorts suggesting that even those in the serving class were people, not really any different from those they were serving. And entitled to a certain measure of respect. And well frankly it's all kind of snowballed out of control from there.
So what is a member of today's Master Class to do?
Chris Hedges offers up one chilling example of how Fed Ex Kinkos has used a wide array of modern pop psychology approaches to keep their workers in the place that surely God in His Infinite Wisdom must have ordained for them.
[...]Vasquez saw that some of his co-workers didn't like having to speak about private, potentially embarrassing information. But the corporate manager tried to pump them up.
"She spun it so hard I felt dizzy," said Vasquez. " ‘Isn't this wonderful?! We have such a wide range of great team members. This really shows what a great place this is to work, and how you can make a career here!' she said."
"One man stared at the floor in anger and embarrassment," Vasquez said. "If he had said anything she would have e-mailed his center manager and he would have been written up and probably denied a raise. By the way, raises are 25 cents a year."[...]
[...]Corporate employees, like everyone else, are gripped by personal dilemmas, anxieties and troubles. They are not permitted, however, to ask whether the problem is the corporate structure and the corporate state. If they are not happy there is, they are told, something wrong with them. Real debate, real clashes of opinion, are, in the happy world of corporatism, forbidden. They are considered rude. The corporations enforce a relentless optimism that curtails honest appraisal of reality and preserves hierarchical forms of organization under the guise of "participation." Corporate culture provides, as Christopher Lasch pointed out, a society dominated by corporate elites with an anti-elitist ideology.
Positive psychology, which claims to be able to engineer happiness and provides the psychological tools for enforcing corporate conformity, is to the corporate state what eugenics was to the
Nazis. Positive psychology is a quack science that throws a smoke screen over corporate domination, abuse and greed. Those academics who preach it are awash in corporate grants. They are invited to corporate retreats to assure corporate employees that they can find happiness by sublimating their selves into corporate culture.[...]
Whether by using social and economic pressures, or psychology, the ultimate aim is pretty much the same. To convince us that our inferior position is perfectly right and natural, and most importantly unchangeable. Then to keep us there.
One of the most subtle and insidious ways that companies do this is by placing requirements on its workers that it does not adhere to its self. Usually these requirements are standard parts of basic civil intercourse, either taken to ridiculous extremes, or perverted in some way.
An example from my own working life happened recently around "Performance Review" time. Now where I work there is a requirement that any requests for a particular day off, or change to one's hours available for scheduling, or quitting, must be submitted in writing, no less than two weeks before the desired date.
Then my POE(Place Of Employment) put a notice in the monthly calendar indicating what date the reviews would he happening on. However they gave no indication at all about location. It was only finally (at some locations) that a notice was present the morning of telling people where it was, and that to get their paychecks (clever monkey's they had the event take place on a pay day) they would have to go. The distance was not inconsiderable, and best of all it was in the heart of a small college town so one's choices were either take public transport (bus or taxi) or pay for parking. Well as you can imagine this went over like a lead balloon with a great many people. When you are barely paying people above the subsistence level wage that is minimum, how arrogant do you have to be to require them to expend extra money for gas and parking simply to pick up the pay check that they have already earned?
Of course anyone who dares to complain has attempts made to make them feel as if there is something wrong with them for being upset.
Honestly if one looks dispassionately at the actions and attitudes of much if not most of Corporate America, they bear a chillingly uncanny resemblance to many of the signs of an abusive relationship.
Is jealous or possessive toward you. Tries to control you by being very bossy or demanding. Tries to isolate you by demanding you cut off social contacts and friendships. Claims you are responsible for his or her emotional state. Blames you when he or she mistreats you. Has a history of bad relationships. You frequently worry about how he or she will react to things you say or do. Discourages your relationships with friends and family. Constantly criticizes or belittles you. Destroys or takes your personal property or sentimental items. Playing mind games. Interrogating you. Harassing or intimidating you. "Checking up on" your activities or whereabouts. Making you feel guilty. Shaming you. Controlling what you do, who you see and talk to, what you read, where you go. Makes light of the situation and does not take your concerns about it seriously. Saying the abuse did not happen, or wasn't that bad. Shifting responsibility for the situation to you. (i.e: It happened because you ______.) Saying you caused it.
The preceding examples I took from the site I referenced. I edited them so they would sound correct talking about a relationship between a person and a corporation, and omitted those the don't seem quite germane. But even still I find it fairly chilling personally. As someone who has survived an abusive relationship I'd like to add a couple to the above list. Namely,
Sets standards that you are expected to adhere to but they don't have to. Sets unreasonable standards of performance and/or behavior. Changes the standards constantly and expects you to adhere without any complaint or even discussion. Changes the standards at a moments notice with no recourse available to you
And the abuse, both subtle and gross heaped upon any of us who dares to stand up to our self appointed betters, is nigh unto believable. And it is both insidious and persistent. All the while at a great many places, a quiet behind your back smear campaign goes on, helping to alienate you from fellow employees, there by ensuring that you cannot start any kind of a "movement". This my Brothers and Sisters is how they get us, every time. They keep us in toil and misery and concentrating on our tasks so that we don't dare look up or speak up.
But many of us are growing tired of them and their ways. Many of us are indeed both looking up and speaking up. Some of us directly. Many of us are using the internet, and also using the time honored methods of passive resistance.
I don't know that I hold any hope for Corporate America having an awakening, but at least we can fight to keep their dream from becoming our nightmarish reality.
Fight The Power And Keep The Faith My Brothers And Sisters!
Hello there. I am a nobody. At least as far as our Political and Corporate Masters are concerned. But since all this crap on the internet seems destined to be around for a thousand years or more, I feel compelled to record my thoughts for posterity.
To the insurance companies, and drug companies, and medical companies, and politicians, and lawyers, aka those who get to make the decisions that affect the lives of millions without once ever having to think about who they are hurting or care for that matter.
We hate you, and do not trust you.
"Why?" I can hear you asking. And I'm sure if I was inclined to listen any further you would carry on about how it's all for us, etc etc.
But you are thieves, and liars, and since your thieving and lying has resulted in people's deaths you are also murderers.
You seek to make a profit at the expense of people's lives. You create situations where people must bankrupt themselves to get medical care or go without. You create exclusions that mean that people fucking DIE! because they were not able to get to a hospital of your choosing.
And then you blame everything on what is that oh so charming term you've come up with? Oh yes, "Frivolous Lawsuits"! Which ones would those be by the by? Would those be the lawsuits against doctors who perform the wrong procedure on a patient? Or the lawsuits where a person was denied care at a hospital that was out of their coverage area and died? Please I'm waiting with baited breath to hear of these frivolous lawsuits. Or are they like good old Ronny Raygun and his "Welfare Queens" something that while existent in fact, is if truth is told (Since I'm sure you've never heard of this "truth" I would suggest you Google it.) a great deal rarer than you want to make it out to be.
Meanwhile those of us who are suffering and dying, and praying ever so mightily to not get sick enough to need more than a little Day Quil get our backs up and demand reform. And that's when the politicians come in. And they make such great sounding noises, all the while never getting serious. And they create a decent enough little bill. From which they quickly whittle everything that would protect the people, or reign in the corporations.
So what are we left with? Well the "Public Option" apparently is still on life support barely clinging on, but the "Individual Mandate" seems to be doing quite well. What does that mean at the bottom line? It means that soon I and mine will be forced to pick from one of many varieties of shit sandwiches, and pay whatever ScatCo. (A wholly owned subsidiary of Turd Burglars International) deems mete and proper for me to pay. And if I don't then I'll be taxed the equivalent amount. But the important thing is that the drug/insurance/hospital companies profits will be protected and the rich will not have to lose any more of their nickels and dimes of which they are so fond.
And once this bill is made into law everyone will proclaim, isn't it so grand, and isn't it so fine, we now have healthcare "reform". Which will last for about a minute and a half, until the lobbyists for our Corporate Masters start to work on the politicians to erode what if any protections the bill might afford the working class. And so in time it will be back to refusal to cover for this reason and that reason without paying through the ass as well as the nose. And exclusions about which hospital one can be treated at, and what procedures are allowed. But hey at least we don't have Government Run Healthcare. Thank fucking GOD for that.
And now if it pleases your Lordships I shall go back to my corner with my leavings from your table and try to carry on with dying as quietly as I can so as to not bother my betters.
Ideas I have found can be incredibly slippery things. Sometimes one can get into your head that you don't want to have and you won't even realize it. Hell sometimes you'll be actively against the idea, but sometimes when you least expect it you come to realize that you've got it in your head anyway. I recently had such an experience.
It had to do with aging. I've never been a fan of the obsession American culture seems to have developed with youth, and this ridiculous notion that a person in say their fifties should still look like they are in their twenties. Now this is not to say that I am against people who want to have plastic surgery etc. to keep a more youthful appearance. However I do not believe that such things should be seen as what everyone should do. Nor do I think it is right to pursue keeping one's appearance at the risk of ones well being (by oh say injecting a strain of botulism into ones body for example). But even with holding these beliefs I discovered the other day exactly how warped my own perceptions have become by the current cultural standards.
I saw an article about Robert Redford getting married. Redford is as I recall in his seventies now. And frankly he's in damn good shape in my opinion. But as I recall Redford has gone on record saying that he's not interested in yielding to the youth centered culture we have, and has never gone in for plastic surgery etc. So between that and being a fairly outdoorsy kind of guy, he is showing his age a bit. Which, is you know, natural. But even so when I saw his picture I had two thoughts pop into my head. The first was, “Wow, he looks so old.” The second, on its heels, trying to slip by my conscious awareness was, “He should get that fixed.”
Yeah. He should get looking like a normal healthy seventy plus year old human American male “fixed”. I just about wanted to slap my forehead. Great, I've gotten the mind virus and I didn't even notice it until now.
And I am left to wonder if someone like myself who takes great pride in knowing my own mind and thoughts can be so infected, how bad off are the greater majority of my brothers and sisters who are perhaps not quite so self insightful. How many of us are making a whole host of questionable life choices from clothing to relationships, all because we've had it force fed to us that anything to do with youth is of value, and anything to do with age is not?
Now I'm not going to carry on about how special and magical and super extra wise the “elderly” are because to put it bluntly that's just bullshit. Not everyone who happens to be old, is necessarily a sage, or even a good person. I know many such people who are cranky, selfish assholes. But really that's not the point.
The point is that getting older, is natural. It's just simply what happens. To all of us. So instead of wasting time and money trying to stop it, what if our culture instead started focusing on helping people be healthy in body and mind as they age? What kind of culture of the aged would we have then, I wonder.
I for one think it's well past time that we grow up and find out. Leave youth to the young. I'll take maturity thank you very much.
Alright gang. Here's something I've been working on over the last few weeks. It's kind of beta but I feel the time is right to unleash it on the world.
As I believe it is essential to understand the history and nature of any person who presumes to speak for, or to, a large group of people I will begin this document by in brief acquainting you with my personal history.
My name is Roy Frank Tottie, I am most commonly in the space known as the Internet known by Toriach. I am thirty five years old. I have for almost ten years now been in a committed heterosexual relationship. We are not married, in either a religious, or legal sense, and while we do not view such things as “meaningless”, nor do we believe they are any where near as important in deciding the health and longevity of a relationship as is the commitment of both partners, and their willingness to put in the effort that such an undertaking requires.
I am of Irish, and German heritage mainly. While I use the term “white” I do not care for it, as I do not believe that any person is so easily summed up by skin color, regardless of what that color may be.
I am male.
I have lived my entire life within the contiguous United States. My parents are working class. My father was employed in various capacities within the timber industry, as was his father. My mother worked for a time in the timber industry as well before taking jobs in various aspects of the service industry. My parents for a time owned their own mill. It was a small concern, most of the time they worked it themselves along with my fathers father. At most I can recall them having maybe three non familial employees. Over time as the timber industry took a massive down turn, the mill folded, leaving them with nothing but debt and frustration.
Both of my parents graduated high school. I believe they both had some college, but neither one graduated from any program of higher education. Both of my parents are avid readers, although most of what they read is light fiction. My mother is not a stupid woman, but she is not what I would call an intellectual. My father despite being in many ways a very physical person is also a thinker.
While I did not have class consciousness imparted to me as such by anyone in my family, it was from my father, that I learned the value of work for its own sake, and of how a person should be in control of their own life as much as they can. I also learned a strong distrust of anyone who believes themselves my better simply because they have money.
I was raised in the Christian tradition, and when I was younger I was a fervent believer. As I grew older I moved out of that belief system. I flirted with Atheism, but found in a poor fit. I am now what is most simply described as an eclectic neo pagan.
Politically, I have not until recently been all that aware or active. While I have never exactly bought into the propaganda of the machinery of this country, neither have I actively investigated it, or resisted it until now.
Like my parents I am working class. I graduated high school. I had an interest in going to college, but no burning desire. When I investigated the possibility I learned that to apply for Federal aid, my parents would have to provide information about their financial situation until I was well into my twenties. My father was loathe to do this, as in the past he had serious problems with the IRS. Even though the student loan system was not anywhere near as horrifically weighted in favor of the banks as it has become, it was still bad enough and I knew that I did not wish to go into debt merely for an education that I did not at the time have any concept of what I would do with. Most of my jobs have been with smaller “family” owned operations. My current job is with a large fast food corporation in one of their restaurants. I have no delusions of grandeur about what I do. I have never been possessed of much in the way of ambition, at least not as relates to work.
That without going into what I feel is irrelevant detail, the story of me, and my past.
What I am about to offer up, is what I feel the path that Progressivism must take, if it is to have any hope of being meaningful and relevant to people in the United States, in the twenty-first century. While my words and ideas are my own, they did not spring fully formed out of the void. I owe a tremendous debt to three authors.
First of all to Joe Bageant, author of Deer Hunting With Jesus, for helping me to understand the sins of exclusion that Liberals and Progressives have been committing over the last several decades.
Second of all to Chris Hedges, author of an article I found on Truth Dig entitled, The Corporate Media State Has Deformed American Culture -- Time to Fight Back, for helping to understand the sins of tepidness that Liberals and Progressives have been committing.
And finally to Robert Jensen, author of All My Bones Shake: Seeking a Progressive Path to the Prophetic Voice, an excerpt of which I found via Alternet, for helping me to understand the sins of throwing the baby out with the bathwater that many Liberals and Progressives have been committing.
Before I launch into the main text I wish to make something very clear to the reader. I am writing as someone who has an imperfect understanding of the subject about which I am speaking but ironically it is exactly this fact which makes me the perfect person to speak of it. Because I am not offering up a formal scholarly work, but rather a populist work. The voice of the passionate, self educated, working class Progressive is one that I feel has largely gone unheard for far too long. It is my intention to change this.
Now on with the show.
What Are Progressives And What Is Progressivism?
In American society (hereafter to be referred to simply as “our” society) there are primarily four basic groups and views as regards politics.
Conservatives, who believe that the system is largely fine as it is, and that individuals should be heavily restricted and regulated as regards most all matters, and that such regulation should stem from a moralistic largely Fundamentalist Christian point of view. At the same time they believe that corporations should be encumbered by as little regulation as possible.
Liberals, who believe that the system is largely fine as it is, and that individuals should be as lightly restricted and regulated as possible except where they might harm themselves or another, and that such regulations should stem largely from a largely Liberal Christian point of view. At the same time they believe that corporations should be heavily restricted and regulated, at least on paper if not in practice.
Libertarians, who believe that the system is largely fine as it is, and that neither individuals nor corporations should be heavily restricted or regulated, and that a total free market approach to life is preferable to any kinds of protections for either side.
And finally Progressives, who believe that the system is deeply and fundamentally flawed, skewed to favor corporations and the wealthy at the expense of individuals, especially poor ones.
It is in my opinion only Progressivism which offers anything even remotely resembling hope for the average person. The other three systems are not only deeply flawed, but are fundamentally useless, because they refuse to even consider the idea that the very nature of the system is totally unworkable from the view point of the so called “common” person. However for Progressivism to fulfill its potential it must get back in touch with its roots, and more importantly it must recognize and correct some very fundamental, very crippling mistakes its members have made.
What Did Progressivism And Progressives Used To Be Like?
In the times before the reforms made under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and later under Presidents John F. Kennedy, and Lyndon B. Johnson, Progressives were people who were angry at the injustices visited upon them by those in power. While their anger was initially for themselves individually many, albeit not all of them came to realize that the injustices visited upon others were equally worthy of anger and outrage, and so many Progressives began to come together to make common cause. It was when men and women, black and white, Believer and Atheist, working and middle class, young and old came together and insisted that their voices, their authentic anger and outrage be heard, acknowledged, and acted upon, that real, meaningful change began to take place. It was slow to be sure, but it was real, and it was lasting. Progressives were not afraid to act up, to speak up, or perhaps it is more accurate to say that they did not let their fear stop them from doing those things that they knew were needed to achieve their goals. So they marched, they spoke, they protested, they committed acts of sabotage against the system, making it clear that while they may be in the great machines embrace, they did not embrace it in return. And they did it all with unreserved, and unashamed passion. But then the worst possible thing that could have happened to Progressives did. They won. But only partially.
What Is Progressivism And Progressives Like Today?
Today Progressivism is seen by most people as a movement belonging to Liberals, intellectuals, and elitists. It is seen as a movement that is well meaning but utterly naive. It is seen as caring more about theory than practice. And most importantly it is seen as being too passionless and concerned with pure reason, and disdaining of emotionalism to ever connect with people at the working class, and working poor levels. In short it is seen as being irrelevant, useless, and belonging to the middle classes. This situation is not irresolvable. But if Progressives really want to fix the problems both real and perceived within Progressivism, they must act, and act now. And by now I mean right this second.
What Did Progressivism And Progressives Do Wrong?
To put it simply they let their nobler aspirations get away from them. Progressives have to a large extent always been wary of mimicking the sins of their enemies, and in so doing becoming the very thing they were fighting against. Because of this Progressives often tend to take the so called high road. Preferring to focus on fact and debate, over passion stirring rhetoric. Preferring to speak in a conciliatory way to those who oppose them. This added to the human tendency to not fight nearly as hard when conditions get even marginally better, resulted in the urgency being taken from the movement. In addition it never occurred to most Progressives that the Corporate classes would manage to undo a great many of the advances made in such a comparatively short amount of time.
What Must Progressives Do To Get Progressivism Back On Track?
Frankly a great deal. But first and foremost Progressives must get back in touch with the working classes. Right! Fucking! Now! And by working class I don't just mean people like myself who are working class, but do have some semblance of class consciousness. Oh no. I mean the people who have no education to speak of, no interest in self education, who would rather talk about who won last night on American Idol, than discuss politics, or globalization or any other such topics. These are the people who must be reached. I am not going to lie or pretend to you. Despite having a working class background I suffer from elitist tendencies myself. I despise most all sports. I think that hunting and fishing are boring. Most of the things that the average working class person is into bores the living piss right out of me. But in spite of these feelings I have become determined to find a way to talk to these people, that is open, honest, respectful, and authentic. Not pretending to be just like them, but at the same time making clear that I do understand and respect them. And at the same time finding a way to explain Progressive goals to them in a way that helps them understand that it is the best path for them to have the lives they not only deserve, but also want. Because I can guarantee you that no one actually wants the kind of life that most of the working class have. They might be convinced that it's what they deserve, but they sure as hell don't want it.
I won't claim that this is going to be easy or comfortable. But it is necessary. And what's more if you honestly do not believe that you can do it, then maybe you should seriously consider leaving. Because any person who is not willing to do everything in their power to see their brothers and sisters awakened to the truth, and freed from the bondage in which they toil is not a true Progressive. And the awakening and freeing can not be thrust upon these people. They must choose it. They must hunger for it. They must fight, and bleed and sweat for it. Because otherwise they will know that they have no true stake in it. They will see that it is merely another form of determinism, and paternalism. Just another group of “Masters” shaping their lives without their consent or input.
So how do the Awakened help their brothers and sisters in bondage also become Awakened?
One of the first, most important steps is that we must starting right this instant reclaim our passion for the cause. That means embracing in modified form many of the same tactics the enemy uses. We must be able to take the facts that we have, and put them across in a rhetorical way, that ignites the passions and captures the imagination of all people, regardless of their backgrounds or beliefs. We must make clear our rage, our sorrow, our outrage, and our hope. We must also be willing to speak bluntly and unequivocally, and often in the interest of moving the cause forward to frame things in stark black and white, even while acknowledging that there are greater complexities that we are choosing not to evoke at the moment.
One piece of blunt speech that has been lost by Progressives is a willingness to label those that oppose us and our goals as enemies. The result has been to almost legitimize our enemies in the eyes of the unaware. All the while those very same enemies having no such compunctions, demonize us at every opportunity. We must be able and willing to set our goals, and then to publicly decry anyone who openly stands opposed to either our goals or the reasoning behind them. To give just one example, in the recent fight for healthcare reform any person who proclaims comprehensive, effective, affordable or free healthcare a “privilege” not a “right” is our enemy, and should be spoken of, and treated as such.
Of equal importance, we must take our clarity and use it to winnow out those that would dilute the purity of our passions, by introducing issues that are simply not relevant at this time to our goals both long term and immediate. Not everyone is willing or able to sublimate their issues and agendas, and while there is nothing inherently wrong with such an inability, at the same time we should not allow the movement to be drug of course, or rendered less effectual because of such inability. What does this mean in concrete language? That if a Catholic, wants to join us in seeking to secure and increase the rights of the workers to form and join Unions, even knowing that they will be working side by side with Atheists, homosexuals, etc, then they are more valuable than an Atheist who cannot focus on the work at hand and wants to constantly lecture the Theists in the group about the error of their ways.
Another thing the Progressives must become willing to do, and adept at doing is approaching our topics in a single minded kind of way. Learning the tactic of “Staying On Message” in other words repeating our points at ever opportunity in any venue. We almost must learn to use the tactic known as “Re framing” which is basically asserting the supremacy of our definitions and rhetoric on any given topic. We must do these things because our enemies are already doing them, and this is the only truly effective way to counter them.
Further we need to get over our desire to be seen as “better” than our enemies in any way other than our agenda. One of the things that crippled Al Gore when he was running for President was that when his understandable and authentic anger and outrage at George W. Bush's efforts to steal the election was called “Petty and Un-Presidential” rather than ignoring such criticisms he yielded to them and dampened his passion, almost conceding the cause before there could be any kind of final battle. If people think that we are “not nice” then simply consider that the cost of trying to effect real, lasting change.
We must also embrace the use of rhetoric to get our points across. This includes embracing things like the judicious use of straw men, and even to a limited degrees ad hominem attacks. Both tactics have been. In another section I will be specifically listing the many aspects of debate that are often named as fallacies and explain which ones we will need to make a part of our rhetoric, to what degree, and offer suggestions for how to do so.
Finally, but every bit as important, perhaps more important than anything I've said above, we must be seen in the world doing. Putting our Progressive values into action. This includes things like volunteering at local soup kitchens and shelters, helping to raise money to keep people in their homes, protesting and taking part in actions against corporations and the government. The whole while we are doing such things we must be willing and able to evangelize our cause. Never in a preachy way, but in the same way you'd talk to a friend about a really great movie you just saw, or your favorite restaurant. Using common, every day, easy to understand language, that does not talk down to people, nor attempt be dismissive of their unique.
Is It Possible To Go To Far In Our Pursuit Of The Progressive Agenda?
The answer to that is a vehement and unequivocal “Yes!” Just because we should be willing to adopt some of the more successful tactics of our enemies, in no way means that we should give up having any kinds of standards or notions of right and wrong. Rhetorically speaking, while it is completely acceptable to put the spin on facts that put our agenda in the best possible light, and to communicate those facts which help us make the strongest case while ignoring or down playing those that do not help our case, it is not acceptable to out right lie. To give a simplified example, in a discussion of healthcare, if one of our enemies were to bring up a fact regarding the cost of offering comprehensive would be considerable, it is acceptable to offer counter facts, to suggest that their facts are skewed, or even to say that the cost is not as important as the right for all people to be able to have such care. It would not be acceptable to say that there would not be a cost for such care.
On the physical level, we must be careful to avoid violence as much as possible. Especially violence against people. Violence against property, while not a primary tactic is one that sometimes in certain situations can be used to good effect. Especially the kind of violence known as “graffiti”. But over all a non violent approach to property as well as persons will serve the Progressive Cause the best. Especially in those situations involving the police or military. We are not weapon proof, and it is traditionally much, much harder for those in power to justify any damage of our person during an incident if all those present on the Progressive side are seen offering non violent passive resistance.
Are Your Suggestions The Only Way To Make Progressivism Effective Again?
Of course not. In fact my suggestions have only scratched the surface. It is up to each person who wishes to see the Progressive agenda move forward to use every bit of their passion and creativity to come up with ways to do so. But one thing I can absolutely guarantee is that if we do not make Progressivism as inclusive as possible, and as openly, unashamedly passionate as we can, then the Progressive Movement will have no real future as a force for lasting positive change.
So I was going through my emailed updates from ye old Huffington Post when I found an article from CNBC about Warren Buffet and an animation project entitled The Secret Millionaire's Club.
Basically it's the typical kid friendly, multi cultural kind of animation that has been used to indoctrinate kids in everything from brushing your teeth is good, to the military is a-ok. This time the underlying message seems to pretty much be "Yay Capitalism!" And by the time the kids who see these happy little webisodes get into a situation where they might encounter someone speaking of a system contrary to Capitalism, their indoctrination will be so strong that probably the counter message will bounce right off.
Meanwhile also found via Huff Po, my Brother in the struggle
How about this for a New Rule: Not everything in America has to make a profit. It used to be that there were some services and institutions so vital to our nation that they were exempt from market pressures. Some things we just didn't do for money. The United States always defined capitalism, but it didn't used to define us. But now it's becoming all that we are.[...]
[...]When did the profit motive become the only reason to do anything? When did that become the new patriotism? Ask not what you could do for your country, ask what's in it for Blue Cross/Blue Shield.
The worst part is that I'm sure that Mr. Buffet doesn't have any kind of sinister motive. I'm sure he honestly believes that he's doing a good thing. And that is what makes this project much more insidious than if it was motivated by mere greed.
Fat kids. Sad pathetic little butterballs with worthless neglectful parents. Right? Right!
Jerri Gray was doing all she could to help her son lose weight, her attorney says. But something had gone terribly wrong for the boy to hit the 555-pound mark by age 14. Authorities in South Carolina say that what went wrong was Gray's care and feeding of her son, Alexander Draper. Gray, 49, of Travelers Rest, S.C., was arrested in June and charged with criminal neglect. Alexander is now in foster care.
And since clearly it must be entirely the parents fault without any consideration of society, or economic factors, or the way that foods that are actually junk food get into the supermarket disguised as "healthy" surely these people deserve to lose their children for neglect. Right? Right! I mean by all means let's not think about all the extra stress this kind of crap is going to put on working class parents, many of whom are struggling to keep any kind of what they think is reasonably nutritious food on the table, while still allowing the kid a treat so they don't feel like total food Nazi's. By all means lets set a standard that even most middle and upper class parents don't manage to meet and then lets punish those least able to meet it by taking their kids away from them. It's probably all for the best anyway that way little Butterball Jr. won't have to be around to worry when mommy or daddy develop ulcers, or drop dead of a heart attack at an early age.
Hey I guess the system works after all.
Look, I know full well that some people are simply lazy trash with eating habits that would scare a sarlacc. I know that some people come from a legacy of obese eating habits. And I even understand and appreciate that many judges really are trying to help these people by ordering nutrition classes, exercise standards etc. But first of all for a lot of working class people all that is, is yet another "job" they have to find time to shoehorn in with their job that pays money, and their other job as a parent. Second of all, until the deceptive practices of a lot of manufacturers are forcibly changed, people who are simply trying to spend as little as reasonably possible and still spend it well are going to be deceived. They are going to wind up buying things that are full of salt and preservatives that contribute to the child's and their own health problems. Plus there is the fact that no matter how hard you try to teach them when kids get out from parental over sight they are going to test the waters. Add to that the psychological factors. Of which I'm a perfect example.
I was the first child my parents had. It was my habit as a baby to take a few sucks off the bottle and fall asleep. Then a few minutes to an hour or so later I'd wake up, cry from hunger, take a few more sucks and fall back asleep. Now my parents being noobs were worried that I was being underfed because of this. So they forced me to take what they felt was a reasonable amount. And you know what, I don't blame them. They are human beings and I can understand that they didn't want me to go hungry and they also wanted some sleep. But the result was that for years I was in disconnect with my body, never really knowing if I was hungry or not. So I became an emotion based eater. Frankly I still am. But I've learned ways to tell when I'm full before I become stuffed. But because of this disconnect I was over weight. And I felt bad about myself, and so I over ate to alleviate those feelings. I can remember coming home from the local mini mart with a bag of four to eight jumbo candy bards and eating them all in one sitting. Over time I got better and learned different ways. But I'm sure that today my parents would be looking at a court date for problems that ultimately weren't really single persons fault.
The bottom line is as long as we don't address the underlying problems that lead to childhood and adult obesity, we will keep having these problems. And breaking up families is simply no solution.
Alright folks. I know it's been a while since I've posted. Basically I have a huge move halfway across the country coming up in September, a job that pretty much leaves me dead emotionally if not physically at the end of the day, and a sinking feeling about old Hopey McChangey (AKA President Obama) over there in the whorehouse er I mean whitehouse. But I've not been neglectful of all my duties. I still am keeping up with things. Doing a lot of reading and a lot of thinking. And a lot of my reading has got me none too happy. But this piece pretty much pissed me off enough that I can either spew to The Love Of My Life for the rest of the night or I can share with my fellow netizens. So congratulations and thanks for the help in saving My One True Love a night of me ranting and raving (it's not that she's not in agreement and sympathy but well hell even I get tired of my rantings after a while).
The U.S.unemployment rate has reached 9.5 percent, according to the government's figures. Which bring us to today's EconWatch question: Will increasing the minimum wage during a deep recession help -- or hurt -- unemployment?
We're about to live through that experiment in applied economics. On Friday, the U.S. minimum wage is set to increase from $6.55 an hour to $7.25 an hour. That makes it 11 percent more expensive for businesses to employ a minimum-wage worker.
(The last time the minimum wage was increased was July 2008 as part of the second-to-last step in a series of increases required by a law enacted the year before. This week's increase is the last.)
As anyone paying even scant attention to the news in the last year knows, economists often disagree more than they agree. Some economists, including Nobel laureates, say the spending package known as the "stimulus" bill was a great idea. Others, including Nobel laureates, think it wasn't. More generally, business cycle theory and Keynesian economics are points of sharp disagreement.
The effects of a minimum wage on unemployment are an exception to that rule. Perhaps it's because the economic laws at issue are straightforward, but economists generally agree that increasing the minimum wage also decreases employment; workers who aren't worth $7.25 an hour to their employer won't have a job.
"Most noneconomists believe that minimum wage laws protect workers from exploitation by employers and reduce poverty," says Econlib.org's Concise Encyclopedia of Economics. "Most economists believe that minimum wage laws cause unnecessary hardship for the very people they are supposed to help. The reason is simple: although minimum wage laws can set wages, they cannot guarantee jobs. In practice they often price low-skilled workers out of the labor market."
It's true that some research has indicated otherwise. The most famous study comes from economists
David Card and Alan Krueger, who conducted telephone interviews of fast food restaurants in the neighboring states of Pennsylvania and New Jersey before and after the 1992 increase in New Jersey's minimum wage. Their book suggested that minimum wage hikes have little effect on employment.
Other economists looked at the Card and Krueger data; one evaluation suggested that the New Jersey employment variation was seasonal and, using actual payroll data from fast food chains, calculated that New Jersey employment fell 4.6 percent relative to Pennsylvania. Another analysis calculated that a 1 percent decrease in the minimum wage increases the probability of an unemployed worker getting a job by around 1 percent.
Greg Mankiw, a Harvard University professor who was the chairman of the council of economic advisors under George W. Bush, wrote a textbook that said in part:
The minimum wage has its greatest impact on the market for teenage labor... Many economists have studied how minimum-wage laws affect the teenage labor market. These researchers compare the changes in the minimum wage over time with the changes in teenage employment. Although there is some debate about how much the minimum wage affects employment, the typical study finds that a 10 percent increase in the minimum wage depresses teenage employment between 1 and 3 percent. In interpreting this estimate, note that a 10 percent increase in the minimum wage does not raise the average wage of teenagers by 10 percent. A change in the law does not directly affect those teenagers who are already paid well above the minimum, and enforcement of minimum-wage laws is not perfect. Thus, the estimated drop in employment of 1 to 3 percent is significant.
Other research is more counter-intuitive. One paper by David Neumark and Olena Nizalova says that: "Exposure to minimum wages at young ages may lead to longer-run effects. Among the possible adverse longer-run effects are decreased labor market experience and accumulation of tenure, lower current labor supply because of lower wages, and diminished training and skill acquisition."
While this debate may never be completely resolved, it's probably fair to say, as George Mason University's Don Boudreaux argues, "the theoretical case that (employers) respond in ways unfavorable to low-skilled employees is too powerful to dismiss."
Let's assume for the sake of argument that's true. Going back to our original Econwatch question, this implies that politicians who might be only mildly worried about increasing unemployment rates during an economic boom should be much more worried about job losses in a recession. (Shadowstats.com's alternate way of calculating unemployment, using the earlier methodology that counts discouraged workers, puts the rate at around 20 percent.)
No wonder that David Neumark, a professor of economics at the University of California, Irvine, says now is the worst time to raise the minimum wage. "Given present economic conditions, the imperative should be to create and enhance job opportunities," he argues. "I do not expect President Obama or congressional Democrats to give up their long-held support for a higher minimum wage. However, they should delay the increase in the minimum wage scheduled for this summer."
Of course, that never happened. Politicians love to tout increases in the minimum wage; it's a near-perfect opportunity to claim that Americans' salaries will increase without any negative effects. In the next few months, look for the real world to put that theory to the test.
What a fucking crock of shit.
This is of course the same fucking crock of shit (here after to be simply referred to as FCS to spare me time and the more sensitive readers from having to see the F word a whole bunch of times more) that gets trotted out any time anyone dares to suggest even the most modest of increases in the minimum wage.
It is because of this FCS and the fearmongering that goes with it that the minimum wage stayed the same for TEN YEARS!
Frankly it was not justifiable back then. But somehow King Clinton The Gutless managed to justify it. He kept brushing it off, talking about how robust the economy was etc. Then
King Bush The Moron came into power. And truly his was a brilliant strategy. Not one but three increases, with the final biggest one to take place after he was out of office. Hooray! But now finally at the end of this month the wage is going to be going up to something approaching reasonable (not even close to reasonable, but I think if you squint you can see reasonable in the distance through the trees and just under the cloud cover). But since the faceless minions of orthodoxy don't want the wage serfs to get any bright ideas about seeing any more of an increase any time soon, one of their media puppets has written a little unthink piece trotting out the old realiable FCS. And you know in the past I simply went, "Oh what a fucking crock of shit." and got on with my day. But not this time. This time I'm angry. This time I'm lividly furious. Why? Because this time we have massive bank and brokerage failures, which we bailed out, and then all those people got all their huge ass bonuses (btw if you want to be oh so clever and point out that those people took smaller bonuses this year, go right ahead, but anyone getting a bonus with the word million or billion at the end of it gets absolutely no sympathy from me, and anyone getting a bonus with the word thousand doesn't really get much either) despite said bonuses largely coming from bail out money. And this apparently is just dunky hory for the economy, and the market, and little baby jebus in the manger and etc etc. But we down here in wage serfdom hell, making something approaching a living wage (not anywhere near it mind, but if you strain hard you can just hear the people actually making a living wage as their children don't cry themselves to sleep at night from hunger) is apparently a huge danger to the future well being of the job market. Goldman Sachs managing to manipulate the entire situation to continue to thrive on the taxpayers dime is somehow just perfectly cricket, but how dare I want to live in a world where I might be able to put breaks on the car and still be able to buy groceries and gas and maybe just maybe a night out at the cheap movie theater without going into hock to the bank and their over draft protection racket without me and mine having to practically live at work! What kind of a son of a bitch must I be. I should be fucking ashamed of myself!
Seriously. Do you know how hard it is for me to be this angry publicly? It's not in my character frankly. But I'm pissed. And I'm not the only one. There are a lot of of us who are getting tired of being told that we are somehow bad or wrong for just wanting a decent life with a few good things. A little enjoyment, and some rest without unending fucking toil. I am the first to agree that people who think they should have everything handed to them without putting forth any effort are basically wastes of space. But this inference that life should involve this constant Sisyphian effort and that we in the working classes should not be angry about it is nonsense. And it has got to stop. Or else you are going to start to see people who are angry enough to do something stupid about it. When the time comes I won't be joining them, but I can pretty much assure you I won't be risking my ass to stop them either.
Keep The Faith My Brothers And Sisters (and let me know if you have any to spare as I seem to have misplaced mine)
Image via Wikipedia
Image via Wikipedia
Image via Wikipedia![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=5c4c5e32-ccbe-49ac-9571-b121f3dcca37)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=5620d88b-77f7-4875-a477-4bf84b5f698c)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=bc089f98-a51d-42ce-92d3-25e9a01f8668)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=54eb729a-c0b9-4f6c-ba00-68088f4e5047)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=cafcf43f-ffed-4f87-b65f-15a7630fb652)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=6c55e771-0c7d-484b-995b-6f4ff6a3e18e)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=334bc636-fd44-4a16-a063-36456251174c)