Capitalism vs. Family Values and Personal Growth on Sundays

On the Sunday after a Saturday Christmas, stores are a-hoppin' with After Christmas sales and so I recall a conversation I had in Switzerland a few years ago. An elderly relative of T's asked if shops are closed on Sunday in America as most are in Switzerland, a land not known for religious fervor. "Sadly, no" I admitted, and my misgivings were not due to some hearkening back to the Blue Laws and Sunday Services of my youth. No, it just struck me that shopping, the recreational activity of capitalism, has trumped family values and wise personal growth in America.

Here's how I see it: Advertising tells us that to live is to consume and to consume formidably. Wanting and acquiring -- perhaps to the point of avarice -- provide a recreational activity and a sense of identity. And the message proclaiming as much is loud and incessant so that the kind of solitude that can awaken us to ourselves is not only difficult to come by, but is denigrated as suspect.

So we risk developing very little sense of ourselves independent of the things we possess and wish to possess. Merchants understand this and also know that Sunday is the day most of us can use the entirety of to pursue recreational capitalism.

But for years, merchants did not open their doors on Sunday. Blue Laws forbade it and even where those laws didn't exist, there was an understanding among locally owned businesses. Then . . . a few did start doing business on Sundays. This inspired competition to serve the customer on Sundays, too. Giant, national chain merchants opened without a bit of compunction, too, shamelessly forcing mom and pop operations to open as well or face the anxiety of not being open when the whole town is shopping for everything at Costco.

As a result, Sunday became a day to consume, not a day of rest, not a day for other civilizing activities like a big family dinner, picnics in the park, long walks, touch football, a good book, and, yes, going to Church or Temple. No, these civilizing activities were shoved aside.

Conservative Opposition to Repealing "Don't Ask Don't Tell" and to Gay Rights in the Military

According to conservatives, here's a typical scenario that can be expected in a war zone after the repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell":

The shit could be all around them at any moment. So in this bunker, 15 soldiers, mostly men, but a few unattractive women, too, quietly, expertly, prepare for battle. All except one: Johnny Bigun. Wearing his boots untied, a flak jacket, and thong underwear, he fashions a makeshift ironing board to sharpen the creases in his fatigues, dancing all the while. His iPod? Pointer Sisters, of course, with whom he lip synchs "Yes We Can Can." Or the Village People. Though Johnny is in the army, he insists, "Oh, I've been IN the navy!"

The women, all unattractive soldierly types, but expertly prepared, tend to Johnny's duties, telling him not to worry about anything. "You GO, girl!" they whisper to him as he lip synchs to the unheard Pointers. They offer to do everything for Johnny except clean his weapon which Johnny does lovingly twice each day.

The other men in the unit are strangely attracted to Johnny for reasons they can't understand and they hate him for it.

Suddenly, mortar fire, AK-47s everywhere along with men shouting in some local dialect. The bunker is under siege. However, due to their expert preparation and drills, the soldiers all assume their positions and their roles with their equipment in hand and at the ready. Here a radioman calls for backup, there a lieutenant issues orders, here a medic readies supplies and runs to the aid of a wounded comrade. Despite the menace of arms, the soldiers in that bunker comprise a well-lubricated unit, the pride of the CO, and if casualties are suffered, it won't be for want of preparation.

Focus is everywhere. Fear is there, too, but not expressed or even exhibited. Focus defines the unit . . . until Johnny Bigun realizes he hasn't had sex in nearly 12 hours. Knowing he can't function without sex, Johnny yells above the din of arms, "Does anyone here want to have sex with me now?" Three men who'd never experienced homosexual sexual relations nonetheless figure that homosexual sex is better than no sex at all and they shouldn't turn down this offer of immediate sex and so they decide to leave their posts and have sex with Johnny Bigun.

Unit cohesion deteriorates. Everyone dies.

Everyone dies . . . all but one with the names of their heterosexually wed wives and husbands back home.


Graphics from: Unconfirmed Sources. www.unconfirmedsources.com

Why Unions Are Necessary for Democracy

Paul Krugman in the 2.20.11 NYT in an op-ed opposing Wisconsin Governor Walker's attempts to deprive public employee unions of collective bargaining rights:

In principle, every American citizen has an equal say in our political process. In practice, of course, some of us are more equal than others. Billionaires can field armies of lobbyists; they can finance think tanks that put the desired spin on policy issues; they can funnel cash to politicians with sympathetic views (as the Koch brothers did in the case of Mr. Walker). On paper, we’re a one-person-one-vote nation; in reality, we’re more than a bit of an oligarchy, in which a handful of wealthy people dominate.

Given this reality, it’s important to have institutions that can act as counterweights to the power of big money. And unions are among the most important of these institutions.

You don’t have to love unions, you don’t have to believe that their policy positions are always right, to recognize that they’re among the few influential players in our political system representing the interests of middle- and working-class Americans, as opposed to the wealthy. Indeed, if America has become more oligarchic and less democratic over the last 30 years — which it has — that’s to an important extent due to the decline of private-sector unions.

And now Mr. Walker and his backers are trying to get rid of public-sector unions, too.

There’s a bitter irony here. The fiscal crisis in Wisconsin, as in other states, was largely caused by the increasing power of America’s oligarchy. After all, it was superwealthy players, not the general public, who pushed for financial deregulation and thereby set the stage for the economic crisis of 2008-9, a crisis whose aftermath is the main reason for the current budget crunch. And now the political right is trying to exploit that very crisis, using it to remove one of the few remaining checks on oligarchic influence.

Taxes You Have to Love . . .

From: "Find the Taxes That Due Double Duty" by Robert H. Frank in the 2.20.11 NYT

Taxes levied on harmful activities kill two birds with one stone. They generate desperately needed revenue while discouraging behaviors whose costs greatly outweigh their benefits.

Antigovernment activists reliably denounce such taxes as “social engineering”— attempts to “control our behavior, steer our choices, and change the way we live our lives.” Gasoline taxes aimed at discouraging dependence on foreign oil, for example, invariably elicit this accusation.

But it’s a strange complaint, because virtually every law and regulation constitutes social engineering. Laws against homicide and theft? Because they aim to control our behavior, steer our choices, and change the way we live our lives, they are social engineering. So are noise ordinances, speed limits, even stop signs and traffic lights. Social engineering is inescapable, simply because narrow self-interest would otherwise lead people to cause unacceptable harm to others. Only a committed anarchist could favor a world without social engineering.

If outright prohibitions are an acceptable way to discourage harmful behavior, why can’t taxes be used for the same purpose? Taxes are, in fact, a far cheaper and less coercive way to curtail such behavior than laws or prescriptive regulations. That’s because taxes concentrate harm reduction in the hands of those who can alter their behavior most easily.

When we tax pollution, for instance, polluters with the cheapest ways to reduce emissions rush to adopt them, thereby avoiding the tax. Similarly, when we tax vehicles by weight, those who can get by most easily with a lighter vehicle will buy one. Others find it cheaper to pay the tax.

The list of behaviors that cause undue harm to others is long. When we drink heavily, we increase the likelihood that others will die in accidents. When we smoke, we cause others to suffer tobacco-related illnesses. When we emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, we increase the damage from greater climate volatility.

EVERY dollar raised by taxing harmful activities is one dollar less that we must raise by taxing useful ones. The resulting revenue would enable us to reduce not only the federal deficit, but also the highly regressive payroll tax. And cutting that tax would stimulate hiring and help low-income families meet the burden of new taxes on harmful activities.

CHRISTMAS TIME IS HERE . . . AND HERE . . . AND HERE . . . .

Visited my father and Jean, his partner of many years, near Christmas. They live in a relatively new development in Chico, California. Each house is one story and they're all about the same size at around 2000 square feet. The fronts seem of equal length, the space between the houses, equal. Very few trees anywhere. Each house features a well-manicured, dark green lawn; each house seems orderly and well-kept. Despite sidewalks, and a few portable basketball hoops, I rarely see people anywhere in the neighborhood. There are no front porches. Every front door is shut. No children play in a wide street that sees little travel. It's a soundless neighborhood.

But it's alive with Christmas decorations on lawn, roof, and facade of nearly every house. Most have scores of small, colorful lights; many have a Santa or two or three in various poses and settings -- some relaxing under palm trees, some on a sleigh, some standing with legs wide apart in a greeting. There are inflatable snow-globes, inflatable characters and inflatable scenes, though not all are inflated during the day and so a flattened, deflated mess of color mars a lawn otherwise filled with Christmas cheer. Candy canes, brightly lit trees with computer generated lighting patterns, carolers, elves, penquins, even Mrs. Claus.

A favorite feature is brightly lit reindeer with slowly swiveling or nodding heads. I'm told that sometimes, late at night, kids ride around town and place the reindeer, with their swiveling, nodding heads, in attitudes of sexual congress. This forces Jean up a little earlier than she intends so as to decouple frolicing, lights a-poppin', heads a-noddin' deer before the sun comes up and so that the neighbors we never see won't be scandalized. Jean has unseasonable things to say about such kids who would disturb the "poor reindeer."

Some houses are dark holes on the street. So cheerless are these houses by comparison with the hundreds of candy-colored lights on either side that one almost expects Boo Radley to come out of the back of one and eat a squirrel or something.

Most houses sport a modest display that suggests a day's joyful work. Some go a bit beyond that, compelling Tina to wonder if there are "catalogs with up-to-date creations that people just must have."

And then there's that one house that seems nearly steroidal in its adornment. So bedecked in Christmas regalia is this house, so swathed in ornamentation, trimmings, and Christmas baubles, that I got the impression of an illuminated, manic rooster among lesser cocks. Here it is:



Across the street, as if in somber, if not opprobrious, response was a bit of mangy buzz-killing homelessness illuminated by a single star. Pushed up as far toward the street as it can be placed, this scene is either about to cross the street and have a word with the Santa Fantasia scene or maybe it just seems to ask, "Uh, have you forgotten something?" Here it is:



The placement of the creche facing the riotous Santa party across the street gave the impression of a scolding neighbor: "Hey! Hey you! Let's hold it down over there! I got a sleeping baby here!"

The Fallacy of "Cyberutopianism"

editorial cartoon by Joel Pett


From Frank Rich in the 2.6.11 NYT:

Among cyber-intellectuals in America, a fascinating debate has broken out about whether social media can do as much harm as good in totalitarian states like Egypt. In his fiercely argued new book, “The Net Delusion,” Evgeny Morozov, a young scholar who was born in Belarus, challenges the conventional wisdom of what he calls “cyber-utopianism.” Among other mischievous facts, he reports that there were only 19,235 registered Twitter accounts in Iran (0.027 percent of the population) on the eve of what many American pundits rebranded its “Twitter Revolution.” More damning, Morozov also demonstrates how the digital tools so useful to citizens in a free society can be co-opted by tech-savvy dictators, police states and garden-variety autocrats to spread propaganda and to track (and arrest) conveniently networked dissidents, from Iran to Venezuela. Hugo Chávez first vilified Twitter as a “conspiracy,” but now has 1.2 million followers imbibing his self-sanctifying Tweets.

This provocative debate isn’t even being acknowledged in most American coverage of the Internet’s role in the current uprisings. The talking-head invocations of Twitter and Facebook instead take the form of implicit, simplistic Western chauvinism. How fabulous that two great American digital innovations can rescue the downtrodden, unwashed masses. That is indeed impressive if no one points out that, even in the case of the young and relatively wired populace of Egypt, only some 20 percent of those masses have Internet access.

From "Twitter Can't Save You," by Lee Siegal in the 2.6.11 NYT Book Review wherein Siegal reviews "The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom" by Evgeny Morozov.

Morozov urges the cyberutopians to open their eyes to the fact that the ­asocial pursuit of profit is what drives social media. “Not surprisingly,” he writes, “the dangerous fascination with solving previously intractable social problems with the help of technology allows vested interests to disguise what essentially amounts to advertising for their commercial products in the language of freedom and liberation.” In 2007, when he was at the State Department, Jared Cohen wrote with tragic wrongheadedness that “the Internet is a place where Iranian youth can . . . say anything they want as they operate free from the grips of the police-state apparatus.” Thanks to the exciting new technology, many of those freely texting Iranian youths are in prison or dead. Cohen himself now works for Google as the director of “Google Ideas.”

For Morozov, technology is a vacuum waiting to be filled with the strongest temperament. And the Internet, he maintains, is “a much more capricious technology” than radio or television. Neither radio nor TV has “keyword-based filtering,” which allows regimes to use URLs and text to identify and suppress dangerous Web sites, or, like marketers, to collect information on the people who visit them — a tactic Morozov sardonically calls the “customization of censorship.”