I don’t know why economists and pundits seem so puzzled by the merry-go-round of good news-bad news economic statistics that are announced each week.
You know, one day in the news they’ll be trumpeting that the economy is back, that the Gross Domestic Product rose at an 8.2% clip in the third quarter, that personal income rose 0.5% in November, that company inventories are dropping which means consumers are buying which means that any day now companies are going to start hiring…
And then the next day there will be a report that orders for durable goods dropped unexpectedly in November or that new housing starts dropped in November, and the story of the day will express surprise at such weakness in the economy because damn, didn’t yesterday’s statistics show promise of everything starting to boom?
I don’t think there’s any mystery to it at all.
The economy rose because Bush gave Americans tax rebates and tax cuts early in the year, and people spent them. But the economy continues to stall because Bush gave most of the tax cuts to the rich, who don’t need the money.
I said it BEFORE and I'll say it again: the rich have no pent-up demand, because they can already buy anything that their greedy little hearts desire. Non-wealthy Americans, on the other hand, have been scrimping for years as their wages stagnate, their expenses rise, their jobs are ‘downsized.’ They’ve been making do with old clothes so they can save for their children’s education, nursing along their failing automobiles and appliances because they can’t afford to buy new ones.
Give them a little windfall of a tax cut or a tax rebate, and they’ll give a boost to the economy by spending it. Problem is, now it’s spent, and they’re financially strapped again, though perhaps with a new suit or new washing machine to show for it. Even worse, since their pent-up demand exceeded their tiny tax rebate, they probably spent more than Bush had handed them. After all, credit card debt is still rising, personal bankruptcies are still rising, and our savings rate remains abysmal.
Two-thirds of the US economy is built on consumer purchases, and it is consumers who have managed to keep the economy afloat. They’ve done it through refinancing their houses (as we here at DebtorsPrison did) and by going into credit card debt. All Bush’s tax cut did for the average consumer was to give them a couple months of financial reprieve and tempt them into going a little further in debt to make some of the purchases they had been deferring for so long.
Bush dazzled average consumers with a few hundred dollars in their pockets and a whole lot of talk about how his tax cuts benefited the average person, but it’s all lies. The Bush tax cuts were all about giving more money and power to the rich and doing nothing for the economy. It is even a lie to say that taxes have been cut for the average person, because the under-financing of the federal government has meant all sorts of increases in government service fees, as well as in state, local and property taxes. These increases usually hurt the average person with a tiny tax rebate more than they do the wealthy person with a windfall tax cut.
Bush is hoping that the buying boomlet stimulated by his tiny tax cut to the average person will carry the economy at least to the next election, so he can get away with his deceitful lies about his massive give-aways to the rich.
Lets make sure he doesn’t get away with it.
Sunday, December 28, 2003
Thursday, December 25, 2003
Happy Holidays from DebtorsPrison
Happy Holidays to all from DebtorsPrison. It’s been a lean Christmas in the DebtorsPrison household, with Mrs. DebtorsPrison having had only sporadic employment over the past six months. We exchanged modest gifts, and took care of gifts to others by baking lots of goodies. All in all, Christmas cost us well under one hundred dollars. I realize everything is relative, that many people in the United States were unable to afford even that much, and that for many people around the world, one hundred dollars represents months of earnings.
Still, Christmas would have been a lot leaner had we not gotten rid of the $23,000 credit card debt that was the original inspiration for this blog. You can read those early entries about the debt HERE. Or you can just read on, as I’m in the mood to recap the story.
We are a liberal and fairly non-materialistic couple who nonetheless slowly found ourselves drowning in credit card debt. Indeed, the debt is only part of the story…Mrs. DebtorsPrison had gotten a legal settlement of around $30,000 in 1995, so the actual turnaround of our finances—running through the 30 grand and building up the debt—is actually more like a $50,000 hole.
Some of the money went towards the down payment for our house. Some of it went towards a ‘new’ used car, since deceased and never replaced—we’ve been car-less for going on two years now. Much of it went towards our stubbornly striving to live our lives the way we want to. In that period, we took three two-month trips, one to Kenya and two to India, Nepal and Tibet, as well as shorter trips to the US southwest and to Peru. Immersing ourselves in other cultures and seeking to become more global citizens is important to us. These trips were financed partly from savings, but also partly from the settlement money and in smaller part on credit. Another chunk of the debt came from both of us voluntarily giving up stressful jobs for less-stressful ones, despite pay cuts in each instance. Some of the money went towards Mrs. DebtorsPrison’s efforts to develop a consulting business in which her considerable experience with comedy improvisation could be used both for corporate training and for wellness workshops for those suffering from chronic and/or terminal medical conditions, a venture which so far has brought us a minor stream of income.
Very little of the debt came from the accumulation of ‘stuff,’ per se. Nevertheless, the money we devoted towards the pursuit of our life goals meant that ever-so-gradually even our day-to-day expenses eroded our financial position.
Last Spring, thanks to rising real estate values, we refinanced our house, taking out enough additional debt to pay off the credit cards. The debt didn’t actually get paid off, in other words; it just got folded into a new, higher mortgage, and we gave up whatever equity we’d built up in our house over the previous five years. We didn’t really save much in interest costs, since the entire credit card debt was at very favorable 6% and 7% rates. Nevertheless, the ‘nut’ we had to come up with every month for minimum payments decreased dramatically.
It is those reduced monthly payments that have allowed us to stay afloat and virtually debt-free these past seven months despite our greatly reduced income. In fact, thanks to my fistful of credit cards no longer tied up with debt, I’ve even managed to make some money back off of them.
With the accumulated ‘points’ on one card, I had enough to cash in for $175.00 worth of gift certificates at various retailers. In addition, I took advantage of a couple limited-time, no-interest, no fee deals that two cards offered me. I borrowed $13,000 on the cards and used that money to open up accounts at two internet banks. Both banks offered $50.00 bonuses for opening new accounts, so that alone earned me one hundred bucks.
In addition, the accounts paid 2% interest, so over the time I was able to keep the large sums in the accounts, I earned an additional $65.00 in interest. I simply paid the minimum payments out of the borrowed money itself, and when the no-interest period expired, paid the debt off. No interest paid, $165.00 in interest and bonuses earned, and I’ve managed to keep both accounts open with smaller sums, continuing to earn interest.
Finally, two cards offered me limited-time 5% cash back on purchases up to two thousand dollars. I took each of the cards up on the deal and have been charging everything, including groceries, and paying off the balance each month. I already hit the two thousand dollars on one card, thus earning the maximum $100.00 back, and am well on my way to doing the same on the second card.
In short, over the past six months, I’ve made about $540.00 off of my credit cards. Sure, they’ve made more off of me over the years in interest, and yes, a truly daring person might have taken that limited-time, no-fee interest-free thirteen grand and swung a real estate deal to make more money, but I’m happy. Unfortunately, now that my credit profile no longer shows me as a home-owner with a large yet manageable credit card debt, the best deals are no longer coming in the mail so often. But I remain alert for ways to earn more money off these cards, and we are resolute in never getting back into those huge debt problems.
Anyway, it has been a wonderful Christmas, despite our strained finances and all the craziness in the world. We feel refreshed, focused and ready to continue trying to make the world a better place. I hope all who read this have had a wonderful holiday as well.
Still, Christmas would have been a lot leaner had we not gotten rid of the $23,000 credit card debt that was the original inspiration for this blog. You can read those early entries about the debt HERE. Or you can just read on, as I’m in the mood to recap the story.
We are a liberal and fairly non-materialistic couple who nonetheless slowly found ourselves drowning in credit card debt. Indeed, the debt is only part of the story…Mrs. DebtorsPrison had gotten a legal settlement of around $30,000 in 1995, so the actual turnaround of our finances—running through the 30 grand and building up the debt—is actually more like a $50,000 hole.
Some of the money went towards the down payment for our house. Some of it went towards a ‘new’ used car, since deceased and never replaced—we’ve been car-less for going on two years now. Much of it went towards our stubbornly striving to live our lives the way we want to. In that period, we took three two-month trips, one to Kenya and two to India, Nepal and Tibet, as well as shorter trips to the US southwest and to Peru. Immersing ourselves in other cultures and seeking to become more global citizens is important to us. These trips were financed partly from savings, but also partly from the settlement money and in smaller part on credit. Another chunk of the debt came from both of us voluntarily giving up stressful jobs for less-stressful ones, despite pay cuts in each instance. Some of the money went towards Mrs. DebtorsPrison’s efforts to develop a consulting business in which her considerable experience with comedy improvisation could be used both for corporate training and for wellness workshops for those suffering from chronic and/or terminal medical conditions, a venture which so far has brought us a minor stream of income.
Very little of the debt came from the accumulation of ‘stuff,’ per se. Nevertheless, the money we devoted towards the pursuit of our life goals meant that ever-so-gradually even our day-to-day expenses eroded our financial position.
Last Spring, thanks to rising real estate values, we refinanced our house, taking out enough additional debt to pay off the credit cards. The debt didn’t actually get paid off, in other words; it just got folded into a new, higher mortgage, and we gave up whatever equity we’d built up in our house over the previous five years. We didn’t really save much in interest costs, since the entire credit card debt was at very favorable 6% and 7% rates. Nevertheless, the ‘nut’ we had to come up with every month for minimum payments decreased dramatically.
It is those reduced monthly payments that have allowed us to stay afloat and virtually debt-free these past seven months despite our greatly reduced income. In fact, thanks to my fistful of credit cards no longer tied up with debt, I’ve even managed to make some money back off of them.
With the accumulated ‘points’ on one card, I had enough to cash in for $175.00 worth of gift certificates at various retailers. In addition, I took advantage of a couple limited-time, no-interest, no fee deals that two cards offered me. I borrowed $13,000 on the cards and used that money to open up accounts at two internet banks. Both banks offered $50.00 bonuses for opening new accounts, so that alone earned me one hundred bucks.
In addition, the accounts paid 2% interest, so over the time I was able to keep the large sums in the accounts, I earned an additional $65.00 in interest. I simply paid the minimum payments out of the borrowed money itself, and when the no-interest period expired, paid the debt off. No interest paid, $165.00 in interest and bonuses earned, and I’ve managed to keep both accounts open with smaller sums, continuing to earn interest.
Finally, two cards offered me limited-time 5% cash back on purchases up to two thousand dollars. I took each of the cards up on the deal and have been charging everything, including groceries, and paying off the balance each month. I already hit the two thousand dollars on one card, thus earning the maximum $100.00 back, and am well on my way to doing the same on the second card.
In short, over the past six months, I’ve made about $540.00 off of my credit cards. Sure, they’ve made more off of me over the years in interest, and yes, a truly daring person might have taken that limited-time, no-fee interest-free thirteen grand and swung a real estate deal to make more money, but I’m happy. Unfortunately, now that my credit profile no longer shows me as a home-owner with a large yet manageable credit card debt, the best deals are no longer coming in the mail so often. But I remain alert for ways to earn more money off these cards, and we are resolute in never getting back into those huge debt problems.
Anyway, it has been a wonderful Christmas, despite our strained finances and all the craziness in the world. We feel refreshed, focused and ready to continue trying to make the world a better place. I hope all who read this have had a wonderful holiday as well.
Thursday, December 18, 2003
Roast Turkey in Baghdad, Cooked Goose in Tikrit
George Bush has had a very good few weeks in the photo op department. First, there was his surprise Thanksgiving drop-in on the troops in Baghdad, and then there was the capture of Saddam Hussein.
I’m certainly no fan of this unelected president currently residing in the White House, but I’ll confess to feeling a rush of happy gratitude and admiration when I saw those pictures of Bush serving turkey to the troops. What a surprise, what a thrill to the men and women in that mess hall, what a daring and magnanimous gesture.
But also…what a stunt. Because in the end, that’s all it was: a stunt. I truly believe that Bush went to Baghdad in part out of a true goodness, a desire to show his support and appreciation to those soldiers he has asked such sacrifice from. But I also feel that an even stronger motivation was pure political calculation…his political team was looking for visuals that would really wow the voters, razzle-dazzle ‘em and make them forget their increasing discontent. After all, the video footage of his prior stunt, flying onto that aircraft carrier in his flight suit and addressing a crowd of cheering sailors before a huge banner announcing “Mission Accomplished” after the fall of Baghdad, had become largely unusable, what with the hundreds of slain and wounded soldiers and the continuing chaos and violence in Iraq showing that, well, maybe that ‘mission accomplished’ had been a little premature. (And will the flight-suited George W. Bush action figure inspired by that stunt now be joined by a second, this time in army fatigues with a roast turkey in his arms?)
Yes, Mr. Bush. It was very nice of you to spend Thanksgiving in Baghdad (foolhardy too, perhaps…I have to question the judgment of a President who flies to a war zone for a publicity stunt.) But I can’t help thinking that those soldiers you dined with would not have rather been home enjoying Thanksgiving with their own families. And I can’t help thinking that the families of the soldiers who have died in your little war would not have rather had their sons and daughters at the dining table rather than in a casket.
Nor can this stunt obscure the fact that this war in Iraq is bad policy, a forfeit of hundreds of young lives and a waste of hundreds of billions of dollars in pursuit of a policy that has little to do with justice or with lessening the threat of terror, and much more to do with oil money, defense contracts, and the worldview of a few rightwing zealots who believe that America’s greatest destiny lies in bullying the world and ignoring global cooperation.
And finally, (because Americans love to dwell on gossip more than issues of substance), what kind of son invites his parents and children to the ranch for Thanksgiving dinner, but then at the last minute flies off to have turkey with the guys instead, without even telling anyone? Sheesh. My parents woulda killed me….
Bush’s other great publicity coup is, of course, the capture of Saddam Hussein. Here again, I feel some gratitude in seeing one of the world’s tyrants having his goose cooked. This does not mean, however, that I agree with the way it was done.
Removing Saddam Hussein from power was not the job of the United States nor should it in any way have been a priority of our foreign policy. Iraq was not an immediate and direct threat to the United States. He had no connection to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. His weapons of mass destruction program was largely contained by UN sanctions and inspections. This was still an unnecessary war undertaken for ill-considered if not corrupt reasons. Hundreds of US soldiers have died, thousands have been wounded, thousands of families have been disrupted, hundreds of billions of dollars squandered. The Bush administration flat-out lied to the American people about its reasons for waging war. We have alienated our allies, lost the respect of much of the world. And we have, through arrogance and poor planning, fostered a chaotic situation in post-war Iraq that may very well give rise to a worse nightmare than Saddam.
To the American audience, seeing the humbled, humiliated and cowardly Saddam crawl out of his hole was a cinematic moment worthy of Hollywood. His haggard appearance was shocking (the jokes have already begun…Santa Claus goes Goth, he had a suitcase full of $750,000 and he couldn’t afford a haircut….) Seeing his head checked for lice and his mouth checked for sores was humiliating. Yes, the good guys had won and the bad guy had gotten his due.
But those same visuals that play so well to the American cowboy mentality don’t play so well in the Arab world. There, they see an Arab leader being humiliated by the United States, and that just feeds into the simmering resentment and suspicion. Anti-Western sentiment in the Arab world found voice in two major political philosophies in the 20th Century. One was the secular nationalists who came to power in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, people like Gamal Abdul-Nasser of Egypt and Saddam Hussein. The second political philosophy was the fundamentalist Islam that has steadily increased power since the 1980s. The fall of Saddam represents the fall of the last of the powerful secular Arab nationalists, and thus increases radical Islamic fundamentalism as a home for those who seek an outlet for their resentments.
After all, that is why the United States supported Saddam Hussein throughout the Reagan administration. Yes, it’s true: Saddam was our boy, and many of the very acts that Bush has cited as justification for overthrowing him were, in fact, done with US complicity in the 1980s. Sure, we knew he was a devil, but when the choice was between him and the other devil as represented by the Islamic fundamentalists in Iran under Ayatollah Khomeini, we threw in with Saddam. We sold him weapons, sold him technology which could be used in his nuclear weapons program, offered him intelligence which he in turn used to gas his own people, and we even sold him anthrax, bubonic plague and other biological horrors. I’m sure all this will come out when Saddam goes on trial, a trial I suspect will bring more embarrassment than satisfaction to our government. But until then, you can read up on it all at the following links:
From the National Security Archive comes the tale of US support for Saddam in the 1980s, and from testimony in the Congressional Record by Senator Robert Byrd (D-Va) comes the story of our furnishing Saddam with all he needed to make those biological weapons
And finally, there is that wonderful picture of our current Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld making nice with Saddam in Baghdad back in 1983…
I’m certainly no fan of this unelected president currently residing in the White House, but I’ll confess to feeling a rush of happy gratitude and admiration when I saw those pictures of Bush serving turkey to the troops. What a surprise, what a thrill to the men and women in that mess hall, what a daring and magnanimous gesture.
But also…what a stunt. Because in the end, that’s all it was: a stunt. I truly believe that Bush went to Baghdad in part out of a true goodness, a desire to show his support and appreciation to those soldiers he has asked such sacrifice from. But I also feel that an even stronger motivation was pure political calculation…his political team was looking for visuals that would really wow the voters, razzle-dazzle ‘em and make them forget their increasing discontent. After all, the video footage of his prior stunt, flying onto that aircraft carrier in his flight suit and addressing a crowd of cheering sailors before a huge banner announcing “Mission Accomplished” after the fall of Baghdad, had become largely unusable, what with the hundreds of slain and wounded soldiers and the continuing chaos and violence in Iraq showing that, well, maybe that ‘mission accomplished’ had been a little premature. (And will the flight-suited George W. Bush action figure inspired by that stunt now be joined by a second, this time in army fatigues with a roast turkey in his arms?)
Yes, Mr. Bush. It was very nice of you to spend Thanksgiving in Baghdad (foolhardy too, perhaps…I have to question the judgment of a President who flies to a war zone for a publicity stunt.) But I can’t help thinking that those soldiers you dined with would not have rather been home enjoying Thanksgiving with their own families. And I can’t help thinking that the families of the soldiers who have died in your little war would not have rather had their sons and daughters at the dining table rather than in a casket.
Nor can this stunt obscure the fact that this war in Iraq is bad policy, a forfeit of hundreds of young lives and a waste of hundreds of billions of dollars in pursuit of a policy that has little to do with justice or with lessening the threat of terror, and much more to do with oil money, defense contracts, and the worldview of a few rightwing zealots who believe that America’s greatest destiny lies in bullying the world and ignoring global cooperation.
And finally, (because Americans love to dwell on gossip more than issues of substance), what kind of son invites his parents and children to the ranch for Thanksgiving dinner, but then at the last minute flies off to have turkey with the guys instead, without even telling anyone? Sheesh. My parents woulda killed me….
Bush’s other great publicity coup is, of course, the capture of Saddam Hussein. Here again, I feel some gratitude in seeing one of the world’s tyrants having his goose cooked. This does not mean, however, that I agree with the way it was done.
Removing Saddam Hussein from power was not the job of the United States nor should it in any way have been a priority of our foreign policy. Iraq was not an immediate and direct threat to the United States. He had no connection to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. His weapons of mass destruction program was largely contained by UN sanctions and inspections. This was still an unnecessary war undertaken for ill-considered if not corrupt reasons. Hundreds of US soldiers have died, thousands have been wounded, thousands of families have been disrupted, hundreds of billions of dollars squandered. The Bush administration flat-out lied to the American people about its reasons for waging war. We have alienated our allies, lost the respect of much of the world. And we have, through arrogance and poor planning, fostered a chaotic situation in post-war Iraq that may very well give rise to a worse nightmare than Saddam.
To the American audience, seeing the humbled, humiliated and cowardly Saddam crawl out of his hole was a cinematic moment worthy of Hollywood. His haggard appearance was shocking (the jokes have already begun…Santa Claus goes Goth, he had a suitcase full of $750,000 and he couldn’t afford a haircut….) Seeing his head checked for lice and his mouth checked for sores was humiliating. Yes, the good guys had won and the bad guy had gotten his due.
But those same visuals that play so well to the American cowboy mentality don’t play so well in the Arab world. There, they see an Arab leader being humiliated by the United States, and that just feeds into the simmering resentment and suspicion. Anti-Western sentiment in the Arab world found voice in two major political philosophies in the 20th Century. One was the secular nationalists who came to power in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, people like Gamal Abdul-Nasser of Egypt and Saddam Hussein. The second political philosophy was the fundamentalist Islam that has steadily increased power since the 1980s. The fall of Saddam represents the fall of the last of the powerful secular Arab nationalists, and thus increases radical Islamic fundamentalism as a home for those who seek an outlet for their resentments.
After all, that is why the United States supported Saddam Hussein throughout the Reagan administration. Yes, it’s true: Saddam was our boy, and many of the very acts that Bush has cited as justification for overthrowing him were, in fact, done with US complicity in the 1980s. Sure, we knew he was a devil, but when the choice was between him and the other devil as represented by the Islamic fundamentalists in Iran under Ayatollah Khomeini, we threw in with Saddam. We sold him weapons, sold him technology which could be used in his nuclear weapons program, offered him intelligence which he in turn used to gas his own people, and we even sold him anthrax, bubonic plague and other biological horrors. I’m sure all this will come out when Saddam goes on trial, a trial I suspect will bring more embarrassment than satisfaction to our government. But until then, you can read up on it all at the following links:
From the National Security Archive comes the tale of US support for Saddam in the 1980s, and from testimony in the Congressional Record by Senator Robert Byrd (D-Va) comes the story of our furnishing Saddam with all he needed to make those biological weapons
And finally, there is that wonderful picture of our current Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld making nice with Saddam in Baghdad back in 1983…
Saturday, December 13, 2003
...Or Maybe It's Worth A Comment After All
Last week I offered without comment a story about a woman being trampled in a Wal-Mart by a horde of shoppers racing for a bargain DVD player.
At least I thought then it needed no comment: it seemed to perfectly illustrate the self-absorbed greed which people can exhibit. But it turns out that this tale has several different levels of greed involved. Here is a follow-up news story:
Well. It certainly takes blind greed to stomp over someone in order to get a good price on a DVD player. But what sort of greed does it take to understand so well how greedy people are, to know that if you stumble there in front of them they will trample you, and to use this knowledge for your own gain. I mean, the dozens of people who trampled over her only wanted to gain a few dozen dollars in savings on a DVD player, but this woman seems to have been out for both the DVD player and swindling Wal-Mart out of thousands of dollars. Now, if she can only sell the rights to her story to the National Enquirer on top of that....
At least I thought then it needed no comment: it seemed to perfectly illustrate the self-absorbed greed which people can exhibit. But it turns out that this tale has several different levels of greed involved. Here is a follow-up news story:
Associated Press
ORANGE CITY, Fla. - A woman who was reported trampled by Wal-Mart shoppers during a holiday sale on DVD players has filed numerous injury claims against stores since 1987, including nine against the huge retailer.
Patricia VanLester, 41, a former Wal-Mart employee, has received thousands of dollars in injury and workers' compensation settlements from Wal-Mart, records show.
Paramedics reported finding VanLester unconscious atop a DVD player Nov. 28 amid a frenzy of shoppers during an early-bird holiday sale. She was airlifted to a hospital, where she spent two days.
Orange City Police Cmdr. Peter Thomas said yesterday that his department had found no evidence of a crime and had closed its investigation.
Wal-Mart spokesman Dan Fogleman said he had no details about the past settlements, including one filed by VanLester's sister. "We're going to investigate this claim as thoroughly as we have investigated the other 10 claims that this woman and her sister have brought against us in the past," he said.
The sister, Linda Ellzey, said VanLester had suffered a seizure and other injuries caused by shoppers who trampled her "like a herd of elephants." A case manager for VanLester's attorney said VanLester had not filed a formal injury claim against Wal-Mart from last week's incident.
VanLester collected more than $1,800 in workers' compensation claims for slip-and-fall incidents at a Publix supermarket and another Wal-Mart store in 1995 and 1996.
Well. It certainly takes blind greed to stomp over someone in order to get a good price on a DVD player. But what sort of greed does it take to understand so well how greedy people are, to know that if you stumble there in front of them they will trample you, and to use this knowledge for your own gain. I mean, the dozens of people who trampled over her only wanted to gain a few dozen dollars in savings on a DVD player, but this woman seems to have been out for both the DVD player and swindling Wal-Mart out of thousands of dollars. Now, if she can only sell the rights to her story to the National Enquirer on top of that....
Thursday, December 04, 2003
Maybe Now They'll Do Something About Global Warming...
Climate change seen as threat to ski resorts
By Andrew Dampf
Associated Press
TURIN, Italy - Global warming is threatening the world's ski resorts, with melting at lower altitudes forcing the sport to move higher and higher up mountains, a U.N. study says.
Downhill skiing could disappear altogether at some resorts, according to the report, issued Tuesday by the U.N. Environment Program. At others, a retreating snow line may cut off base villages from their ski runs as soon as 2030.
"Climate change is happening now. We can measure it," said Klaus Toepfer, executive director of the U.N. program. "This study shows that it is not just the developing world that will suffer."
Wow! I mean, when it's just a question of worrying about suffering in the developing world, of devastated agriculture and flooded coastal cities, who really cares? But how dare they let anything happen to our ski resorts?
Climate change seen as threat to ski resorts
By Andrew Dampf
Associated Press
TURIN, Italy - Global warming is threatening the world's ski resorts, with melting at lower altitudes forcing the sport to move higher and higher up mountains, a U.N. study says.
Downhill skiing could disappear altogether at some resorts, according to the report, issued Tuesday by the U.N. Environment Program. At others, a retreating snow line may cut off base villages from their ski runs as soon as 2030.
"Climate change is happening now. We can measure it," said Klaus Toepfer, executive director of the U.N. program. "This study shows that it is not just the developing world that will suffer."
Wow! I mean, when it's just a question of worrying about suffering in the developing world, of devastated agriculture and flooded coastal cities, who really cares? But how dare they let anything happen to our ski resorts?
.
What Exactly Do You Mean, Santa, "If I'm A 'Good' Girl or Boy?"
A bit of seasonal news...
Santa's Knee Off-Limits For Some Children
AFP, Dec. 3, 2003
A small town in New Zealand has banned children from sitting on Santa's knee because organizers fear liability if anything goes wrong, organizers said.
Instead, children in the South Island village of Mosgiel would be asked to sit next to him, on specially decorated "elf chairs", as they discuss their Christmas wish list.
Organizer Gail Thompson, secretary of the Mosgiel Business Association, which is organizing the event, said the precaution was "ridiculous" but necessary. She feared children coming back in at a later date with allegations about Santa's behavior.
"None of us really wants the risk of someone saying in 15 years' time 'When we sat on Santa's knee at market day ...', so they are sitting on elves' chairs."
Graham Glass, who will be Santa, was less than impressed. "It's bloody ridiculous — I can't believe we have become so politically correct."
The town has also declared that scrambling for lollipops in a free-for-all would be too dangerous for the children, who will instead be handed sweets from a basket.
What Exactly Do You Mean, Santa, "If I'm A 'Good' Girl or Boy?"
A bit of seasonal news...
Santa's Knee Off-Limits For Some Children
AFP, Dec. 3, 2003
A small town in New Zealand has banned children from sitting on Santa's knee because organizers fear liability if anything goes wrong, organizers said.
Instead, children in the South Island village of Mosgiel would be asked to sit next to him, on specially decorated "elf chairs", as they discuss their Christmas wish list.
Organizer Gail Thompson, secretary of the Mosgiel Business Association, which is organizing the event, said the precaution was "ridiculous" but necessary. She feared children coming back in at a later date with allegations about Santa's behavior.
"None of us really wants the risk of someone saying in 15 years' time 'When we sat on Santa's knee at market day ...', so they are sitting on elves' chairs."
Graham Glass, who will be Santa, was less than impressed. "It's bloody ridiculous — I can't believe we have become so politically correct."
The town has also declared that scrambling for lollipops in a free-for-all would be too dangerous for the children, who will instead be handed sweets from a basket.
Wednesday, December 03, 2003
At Least They Offered Her A Raincheck
Some stories are so perfect they don't need any additional comment...
Shopper trampled in Fla. Wal-Mart
Associated Press
ORANGE CITY, Fla. - A mob of shoppers rushing for a sale on DVD players trampled the first woman in line and knocked her unconscious as they scrambled for the shelves at a Wal-Mart Supercenter.
Patricia VanLester had her eye on a $29 DVD player, but when the siren blared at 6 a.m. Friday announcing the start to the post-Thanksgiving sale, the 41-year-old was knocked to the ground by the frenzy of shoppers behind her.
"She got pushed down, and they walked over her like a herd of elephants," said VanLester's sister, Linda Ellzey. "I told them: 'Stop stepping on my sister! She's on the ground!' "
Ellzey said yesterday that some shoppers tried to help VanLester, and that one employee helped Ellzey reach her sister, but most people just continued their rush for deals.
Paramedics found VanLester unconscious on top of a DVD player, surrounded by shoppers seemingly oblivious to her, said Mark O'Keefe, a spokesman for EVAC Ambulance.
She was flown to Halifax Medical Center in Daytona Beach, where doctors told the family that VanLester had a seizure after she was knocked down and would likely remain hospitalized through the weekend, Ellzey said. Hospital officials yesterday said they did not have any information on her condition.
"She's all black and blue," Ellzey said. "Patty doesn't remember anything."
Ellzey said that Wal-Mart officials called Friday to ask about her sister, and that the store offered to put a DVD player on hold for her.
"We are very disappointed this happened," said Karen Burk, a spokeswoman for Wal-Mart Stores Inc.
Shopper trampled in Fla. Wal-Mart
Associated Press
ORANGE CITY, Fla. - A mob of shoppers rushing for a sale on DVD players trampled the first woman in line and knocked her unconscious as they scrambled for the shelves at a Wal-Mart Supercenter.
Patricia VanLester had her eye on a $29 DVD player, but when the siren blared at 6 a.m. Friday announcing the start to the post-Thanksgiving sale, the 41-year-old was knocked to the ground by the frenzy of shoppers behind her.
"She got pushed down, and they walked over her like a herd of elephants," said VanLester's sister, Linda Ellzey. "I told them: 'Stop stepping on my sister! She's on the ground!' "
Ellzey said yesterday that some shoppers tried to help VanLester, and that one employee helped Ellzey reach her sister, but most people just continued their rush for deals.
Paramedics found VanLester unconscious on top of a DVD player, surrounded by shoppers seemingly oblivious to her, said Mark O'Keefe, a spokesman for EVAC Ambulance.
She was flown to Halifax Medical Center in Daytona Beach, where doctors told the family that VanLester had a seizure after she was knocked down and would likely remain hospitalized through the weekend, Ellzey said. Hospital officials yesterday said they did not have any information on her condition.
"She's all black and blue," Ellzey said. "Patty doesn't remember anything."
Ellzey said that Wal-Mart officials called Friday to ask about her sister, and that the store offered to put a DVD player on hold for her.
"We are very disappointed this happened," said Karen Burk, a spokeswoman for Wal-Mart Stores Inc.
Monday, November 24, 2003
The New $20 Bill
Well, I've been staring at the new twenty dollar bills that have been passing too quickly through my fingers these past several weeks, and I can't say I'm impressed. When they were touted in advance as our first multi-colored currency, I was really looking forward to it. After all, I've traveled all over the world and spent thousands of incredibly beautiful and richly hued pieces of paper. US currency always seemed very drab in comparison to the wonderful banknotes used elsewhere in the world (though that never prevented people all over the world from wanting to swap theirs for US greenbacks).
Imagine my disappointment when all our national graphic designers could come up with was this patchwork of sickly pastels so pale that the bills look washed out even when brand new.
But while the design of the new twenty is bankrupt when it comes to creative design, the more I look at them the more I feel they’ve been invested with all sorts of subliminal messages.
The main element of ‘color’ in the new bill seems to be the beige blob smearing across the center of the front. The first time I saw the bill, I thought it was an old bill that someone had spilled their coffee across, and I still suspect that was how the design originated in some sloppy office of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing. It’s also possible that the spilled coffee motif was meant to symbolize the workaholic American culture.
But it’s the placement of this color right across Andrew Jackson’s super-sized face that I find most striking. When I was a little boy, there was a crayon in my box of Crayolas that was that exact same color. Today I think it is called ‘Peach’ but back then it was called ‘Flesh’—this was the late 1950s and early 1960s, when crayon makers still considered it inappropriate for children to draw non-white people.
Maybe our currency designers just wanted to remind us that Andrew Jackson was a ‘flesh-colored’ guy. These Bush administration Republicans have a lot of nostalgia for those pre-Sixties days before consciousness was raised and culture was diversified, so it’s not surprising that they would prefer our currency to celebrate white people in power.
But while the new currency reflects the Bush administration yearning for the days when white people were unchallenged in running things, it seems to suggest a much gloomier view of the present and future. Take, for example, the color-shifting ink of the “20” in the lower right corner of the bill’s front. Depending on the way you hold it to the light, the number changes from a shining gold to dull brown and finally to black. That’s right: they’ve produced money that tarnishes before your very eyes. This is not the design of a government that feels optimistic about the direction our economy is heading.
But the weirdest visual of all is to be found on the back of the bill. The White House is surrounded by a swarm of tiny yellow $20s that make it look as if it is being besieged by bats or locusts. I know that the Bush administration has a lot of evangelical Christians among both its officials and its supporters—perhaps they are the inspiration for this apocalyptic vision. Or perhaps it is a subliminal exhortation to support the ‘Star Wars’ anti-missile program. After all, the White House appears to be shielded from the attacking legions of $20s by some sort of force-field bubble—labeled, I might add, “In God We Trust.”
Well, I’m not surprised that the Bush administration would retool even our currency to reflect its retrograde politics, fundamentalist Christian philosophy and bankrupt economic policies.
Imagine my disappointment when all our national graphic designers could come up with was this patchwork of sickly pastels so pale that the bills look washed out even when brand new.
But while the design of the new twenty is bankrupt when it comes to creative design, the more I look at them the more I feel they’ve been invested with all sorts of subliminal messages.
The main element of ‘color’ in the new bill seems to be the beige blob smearing across the center of the front. The first time I saw the bill, I thought it was an old bill that someone had spilled their coffee across, and I still suspect that was how the design originated in some sloppy office of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing. It’s also possible that the spilled coffee motif was meant to symbolize the workaholic American culture.
But it’s the placement of this color right across Andrew Jackson’s super-sized face that I find most striking. When I was a little boy, there was a crayon in my box of Crayolas that was that exact same color. Today I think it is called ‘Peach’ but back then it was called ‘Flesh’—this was the late 1950s and early 1960s, when crayon makers still considered it inappropriate for children to draw non-white people.
Maybe our currency designers just wanted to remind us that Andrew Jackson was a ‘flesh-colored’ guy. These Bush administration Republicans have a lot of nostalgia for those pre-Sixties days before consciousness was raised and culture was diversified, so it’s not surprising that they would prefer our currency to celebrate white people in power.
But while the new currency reflects the Bush administration yearning for the days when white people were unchallenged in running things, it seems to suggest a much gloomier view of the present and future. Take, for example, the color-shifting ink of the “20” in the lower right corner of the bill’s front. Depending on the way you hold it to the light, the number changes from a shining gold to dull brown and finally to black. That’s right: they’ve produced money that tarnishes before your very eyes. This is not the design of a government that feels optimistic about the direction our economy is heading.
But the weirdest visual of all is to be found on the back of the bill. The White House is surrounded by a swarm of tiny yellow $20s that make it look as if it is being besieged by bats or locusts. I know that the Bush administration has a lot of evangelical Christians among both its officials and its supporters—perhaps they are the inspiration for this apocalyptic vision. Or perhaps it is a subliminal exhortation to support the ‘Star Wars’ anti-missile program. After all, the White House appears to be shielded from the attacking legions of $20s by some sort of force-field bubble—labeled, I might add, “In God We Trust.”
Well, I’m not surprised that the Bush administration would retool even our currency to reflect its retrograde politics, fundamentalist Christian philosophy and bankrupt economic policies.
Tuesday, November 11, 2003
Bush voted 'Most Corrupt'
Philadelphians had a chance to vote last week on who was the most dishonest, venal and corrupt: their own city government or the Bush administration. Bush won in a landslide, handily voted ‘most crooked.’
Actually, the election was a mayoral race in my home town of Philadelphia, a rematch between incumbent Democrat John Street and Republican Sam Katz. Four years ago it had been a squeaker, with Street winning by only 9,000 votes. This year it was shaping up to be just as close, with the two candidates neck and neck in the polls up to the closing weeks of the race.
Then an FBI bug was found in the mayor’s office, leading to the exposure of a federal probe into corruption in City Hall. You’d think that would spell the end of Street’s re-election chances, but the opposite happened. Street’s numbers soared, and he ended up wiping out Katz by 80,000 votes and 17 percentage points.
Not only that, but the outpouring of anti-Republican voting helped to unexpectedly elect some Democratic judicial candidates in statewide races.
That’s right. The FBI put a bug in the mayor’s office, confiscated his Blackberry handhelds, raided the offices of several of his major campaign contributors and political associates…and voters reacted with a massive shift of support towards him.
How can this be? Easy. Because voters believed George W. Bush and his gang of cronies are way more unethical and underhanded than their mayor. Huge numbers of people concluded that the timing of the investigation was a Bush administration attempt to sway a close election to the Republican candidate. Philadelphia is a stronghold of Democratic voters in a largely Republican state, so a Republican mayor might dampen next year’s Democratic turnout enough to give the state to Bush in the presidential election.
Sound far-fetched that so many people could believe the Republicans are capable of such fraud? Well, not after seeing the recall election in California, where a Democrat in another crucial state was turned out of office for a Republican (Arnold Schwarzenegger, for Chris’sake!). Not after seeing the Republican legislature in Texas seek to undo a done deal in order to redistrict the state more in favor of their candidates. Not when the stories about the potential for rigging the electronic voting machines being installed around the country by the Diebold company, run by an ultra-conservative crony of the Bush administration, are leaping from internet rumors to mainstream media like Newsweek and the New York Times. Not when people remember how second place finisher Bush stole the election in his brother’s state of Florida three years ago.
As economist Paul Krugman writes in his recent book “The Great Unraveling: Losing Our Way in the New Century:”
It doesn't even particularly matter to people whether or not in this case the Bush administration really was trying to interfere in the election. The point is that so many people are so ready to believe it. They've heard Bush lie about Iraq, about the economy, about who actually benefits from his tax cuts for the rich, about the environment, about social security, and on and on.
Philadelphians more and more see through Bush’s lies and his reward-the-rich political cronyism. I think a lot of Americans are starting to see through them as well.
Actually, the election was a mayoral race in my home town of Philadelphia, a rematch between incumbent Democrat John Street and Republican Sam Katz. Four years ago it had been a squeaker, with Street winning by only 9,000 votes. This year it was shaping up to be just as close, with the two candidates neck and neck in the polls up to the closing weeks of the race.
Then an FBI bug was found in the mayor’s office, leading to the exposure of a federal probe into corruption in City Hall. You’d think that would spell the end of Street’s re-election chances, but the opposite happened. Street’s numbers soared, and he ended up wiping out Katz by 80,000 votes and 17 percentage points.
Not only that, but the outpouring of anti-Republican voting helped to unexpectedly elect some Democratic judicial candidates in statewide races.
That’s right. The FBI put a bug in the mayor’s office, confiscated his Blackberry handhelds, raided the offices of several of his major campaign contributors and political associates…and voters reacted with a massive shift of support towards him.
How can this be? Easy. Because voters believed George W. Bush and his gang of cronies are way more unethical and underhanded than their mayor. Huge numbers of people concluded that the timing of the investigation was a Bush administration attempt to sway a close election to the Republican candidate. Philadelphia is a stronghold of Democratic voters in a largely Republican state, so a Republican mayor might dampen next year’s Democratic turnout enough to give the state to Bush in the presidential election.
Sound far-fetched that so many people could believe the Republicans are capable of such fraud? Well, not after seeing the recall election in California, where a Democrat in another crucial state was turned out of office for a Republican (Arnold Schwarzenegger, for Chris’sake!). Not after seeing the Republican legislature in Texas seek to undo a done deal in order to redistrict the state more in favor of their candidates. Not when the stories about the potential for rigging the electronic voting machines being installed around the country by the Diebold company, run by an ultra-conservative crony of the Bush administration, are leaping from internet rumors to mainstream media like Newsweek and the New York Times. Not when people remember how second place finisher Bush stole the election in his brother’s state of Florida three years ago.
As economist Paul Krugman writes in his recent book “The Great Unraveling: Losing Our Way in the New Century:”
It seems clear to me that one should regard America’s right-wing movement—which now in effect controls the administration, both houses of Congress, much of the judiciary and a good slice of the media—as a revolutionary power…a movement whose leaders do not accept the legitimacy of our current political system….Why don’t the usual rules apply? Because a revolutionary power, which does not regard the existing system as legitimate, doesn’t feel obliged to play by the rules.
It doesn't even particularly matter to people whether or not in this case the Bush administration really was trying to interfere in the election. The point is that so many people are so ready to believe it. They've heard Bush lie about Iraq, about the economy, about who actually benefits from his tax cuts for the rich, about the environment, about social security, and on and on.
Philadelphians more and more see through Bush’s lies and his reward-the-rich political cronyism. I think a lot of Americans are starting to see through them as well.
Tuesday, September 30, 2003
Getting A Load of Schick
I see where Schick has introduced a brand-new razor which they promise will revolutionize shaving: the Schick Quattro, featuring not one, not two, not three, but four blades packed into its little plastic cartridge.
A couple thoughts pop immediately into my mind.
First, I'd love to know how I can get a piece of the research and development money Schick will be spending to come up with its next revolutionary idea. I mean, I'd love to get paid millions of dollars to sit around in a room, staring at the Quattro until I finally jump up and yell "Eureka! Let's add a fifth blade!"
And second, I can only say I'm glad I won't be alive a hundred years from now. Considering that Gillette marketed the first twin-blade razor in 1971, and then introduced the triple-blade Mach-3 in 1998, and now we have Schick's four-blade Quattro--well, I figure by the year 2103 they'll probably be up to the nineteen-blade razor. Can you imagine having to wake up every morning and hoist that sucker to your face?
Of course, Schick says that there's more to the Quattro than simply adding yet another blade (along with a second vitamin E and aloe conditioning strip--so I guess there'll be ten of those on the 19-blader of the future). No, it has an ergonomic handle design for advanced precision and control. It has anti-clog technology for superior rinsability. And it has a synchronized, wire-wrapped dynamic blade pack.
Wow.
Of course, no matter how ergonomically designed the handle is, 99% of the precision and control still comes down to your fat fingers and shaky hands, staring at your reversed self in a steam-fogged mirror, feeling sleepy, hurried, hung-over and stressed out.
And superior rinsability still means holding the thing under the faucet for a couple seconds.
As for the fourth blade in its dynamicly wired and engineered plastic cartridge...well, has it really been a problem before this? Has your old razor been missing a lot, leaving big ugly clumps of bristles sprouting out all over your face, forcing other people to avert their eyes? Hell, half the time I'm in such a hurry to get out the door I just drag my three-week old generic drugstore twin-blade across my cheeks without even using shaving cream. Not the closest or most comfortable shave, true, but it doesn't leave me feeling flayed or looking grotesque.
Still, Schick wants us to believe that it seeks to improve the shaving experience of everyone, that it's taking YOUR face into consideration. Funny thing is, if you go to their website, shaving.com, you find they have links for selecting shaving information for different countries and regions around the world. Yet no matter where you go, whether it's the page for Japan or for Africa, all you see are white guy faces and white women legs. Oh yeah, Schick knows a lot about skin.
Schick thinks we're stupid enough to fall for all this. We're not, are we?
A couple thoughts pop immediately into my mind.
First, I'd love to know how I can get a piece of the research and development money Schick will be spending to come up with its next revolutionary idea. I mean, I'd love to get paid millions of dollars to sit around in a room, staring at the Quattro until I finally jump up and yell "Eureka! Let's add a fifth blade!"
And second, I can only say I'm glad I won't be alive a hundred years from now. Considering that Gillette marketed the first twin-blade razor in 1971, and then introduced the triple-blade Mach-3 in 1998, and now we have Schick's four-blade Quattro--well, I figure by the year 2103 they'll probably be up to the nineteen-blade razor. Can you imagine having to wake up every morning and hoist that sucker to your face?
Of course, Schick says that there's more to the Quattro than simply adding yet another blade (along with a second vitamin E and aloe conditioning strip--so I guess there'll be ten of those on the 19-blader of the future). No, it has an ergonomic handle design for advanced precision and control. It has anti-clog technology for superior rinsability. And it has a synchronized, wire-wrapped dynamic blade pack.
Wow.
Of course, no matter how ergonomically designed the handle is, 99% of the precision and control still comes down to your fat fingers and shaky hands, staring at your reversed self in a steam-fogged mirror, feeling sleepy, hurried, hung-over and stressed out.
And superior rinsability still means holding the thing under the faucet for a couple seconds.
As for the fourth blade in its dynamicly wired and engineered plastic cartridge...well, has it really been a problem before this? Has your old razor been missing a lot, leaving big ugly clumps of bristles sprouting out all over your face, forcing other people to avert their eyes? Hell, half the time I'm in such a hurry to get out the door I just drag my three-week old generic drugstore twin-blade across my cheeks without even using shaving cream. Not the closest or most comfortable shave, true, but it doesn't leave me feeling flayed or looking grotesque.
Still, Schick wants us to believe that it seeks to improve the shaving experience of everyone, that it's taking YOUR face into consideration. Funny thing is, if you go to their website, shaving.com, you find they have links for selecting shaving information for different countries and regions around the world. Yet no matter where you go, whether it's the page for Japan or for Africa, all you see are white guy faces and white women legs. Oh yeah, Schick knows a lot about skin.
Schick thinks we're stupid enough to fall for all this. We're not, are we?
Sunday, September 28, 2003
Did Richard Grasso Deserve What He Got?
Steven Martinovich recently had an op-ed piece in the Philadelphia Inquirer claiming that Richard Grasso, recently resigned-in-disgrace CEO of the New York Stock Exchange, fully deserved his $97 million dollars in pay and his $148 million dollars in "deferred compensation" plus the $48 million additional dollars in "deferred compensation" that he said he wouldn't take in a last-ditch effort to fend off his critics and save his job. You can read his op-ed here.
Obviously, I don't agree with him. You can read my previous entry on Grasso HERE. And here is the text of an email I sent to Mr. Martinovich. If I get a response, I'll post it as well.
Obviously, I don't agree with him. You can read my previous entry on Grasso HERE. And here is the text of an email I sent to Mr. Martinovich. If I get a response, I'll post it as well.
"Read your op-ed piece defending Richard Grasso's compensation package in the Philadelphia Inquirer. Sorry, but I think you are missing the point completely.
The question is not whether or not Grasso's work was or was not deserving of being well compensated. The issue is that he was over-compensated no matter how well he did his job.
This system in which, as you so aptly put it, "people at the top receive magnificent salaries topped off by generous bonuses" is creating a groundswell of anger throughout society. It was not so long ago where people at the top of a company earned only up to around 40 times what their lowest-paid employees earned, and indeed this is still not uncommon in many industrialized companies. Now it is becoming common for top executives to make hundreds of times more than their rank and file workers.
One usual apologia for these exorbitant compensation packages is that companies have to pay this much in order to attract top talent. Most people are unconvinced of that salaries have to be so astronomical.
Grasso's compensation struck a nerve because it appeared to be a case of what the average person suspects to be the real game: people at the top scratching each other's backs, colluding to inflate executive salaries.
You bring up the example of Jack Welch. OK, perhaps General Electric stockholder value did increase by $400 billion during his tenure as CEO. So what? He did not singlehandedly create all that wealth. He got one hell of a lot of assistance from middle management, from secretarial help, from factory laborers. I'm sorry, but I do not believe--nor do most fair-minded people believe--that Jack Welch worked a million times harder, or did work that was a million times more valuable, than other GE employees. His compensation is way out out of whack with his contribution, compared to his support team all the way down the line.
No single person--not corporate executives, not actors, not athletes--deserves these outrageous pay packages that are declared to be fair and necessary. To value oneself so above the people who work for and with you is unethical and unhealthy for a cohesive, workable society.
And hey, if corporate America keeps insisting on these inflated compensation packages, then I say let's bring back the 90% income tax bracket for the highest wages."
Tuesday, September 23, 2003
Private Flies
Hey kids! Here's a fun database to peruse: It's the Federal Aviation Administration's aircraft registration database.
By clicking on the "Name" search button, you can see what kind of private aircraft your favorite corporate fat cats have at their disposal. For example, enter "New York Stock Exchange," and you'll find that up until his resignation, Richard Grasso had at his beck and call a Gulfstream Aerospace G-IV and a Cessna 750, and boy don't you bet he wasn't tempted to hop one of those and fly to Brazil last week!
I tried, just for the hell of it, Wachovia Bank, and damned if they don't have nearly 300 planes at their disposal, enough to form an air force for a lot of countries. Amazing that even in this day of instantaneous electronic financial transfers and video-conferencing, they still need all those planes. Maybe some people just like their cash delivered to their estates in person?
Losing your job? Perhaps you're one of the, say, 3000 International Paper layoffs announced last week. I'm sure you'll be happy to know that the company's fleet of five planes will stay intact.
And are you sure you want to buy a General Motors car when you know that its executives travel around in a fleet of 22 planes?
Anyway, plug some names of your own in and have a little fun.
By clicking on the "Name" search button, you can see what kind of private aircraft your favorite corporate fat cats have at their disposal. For example, enter "New York Stock Exchange," and you'll find that up until his resignation, Richard Grasso had at his beck and call a Gulfstream Aerospace G-IV and a Cessna 750, and boy don't you bet he wasn't tempted to hop one of those and fly to Brazil last week!
I tried, just for the hell of it, Wachovia Bank, and damned if they don't have nearly 300 planes at their disposal, enough to form an air force for a lot of countries. Amazing that even in this day of instantaneous electronic financial transfers and video-conferencing, they still need all those planes. Maybe some people just like their cash delivered to their estates in person?
Losing your job? Perhaps you're one of the, say, 3000 International Paper layoffs announced last week. I'm sure you'll be happy to know that the company's fleet of five planes will stay intact.
And are you sure you want to buy a General Motors car when you know that its executives travel around in a fleet of 22 planes?
Anyway, plug some names of your own in and have a little fun.
Wednesday, September 17, 2003
More Deferred Compensation
Deferred compensation is in the headlines again this week. Last week, of course, it was the $139.5 million in deferred compensation pocketed by Richard Grasso, chairman of the New York Stock Exchange. That's $139.5 million on top of the $97 million in pay he's earned over the past eight years, not to mention the benefits package that pays for everything right down to his magazine subscriptions, because God knows it's tough to afford magazine subscriptions when you're only making tens of millions per year.
This week, Vice President Dick Cheney's deferred compensation package has been in the news. It seems that Cheney, since becoming Vice President, has received $367,691 in "deferred compensation" from Halliburton, the oil services company of which he was formerly CEO. He is scheduled to receive additional hundreds of thousands of dollars this year and in the next several years as well. Oh, and he also happens to have 433,333 unexercised Halliburton stock options, which entitle him to buy shares at prices below the company's current stock price.
This is the same Dick Cheney who just three days ago declared on a nationwide television appearance on Meet the Press: "And since I left Halliburton to become George Bush’s vice president, I’ve severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interests. I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven’t had now for over three years."
And this is the same Halliburton that under the Bush/Cheney reign has been granted several billion dollars worth of no-bid defense department and reconstruction contracts in Iraq.
They think we're very stupid, you know. This gang in the White House thinks they can rob us blind, fatten their wallets, take away our rights, jeopardize our safety, gut our schools and social services, and ruin our economy, the environment and our international prestige. They think they can get away with it because they think we're so stupid that we can't see through their blatant lies.
Let's show them we're not so stupid as they believe.
(Some previous DebtorsPrison thoughts on Halliburton can be found HERE.)
This week, Vice President Dick Cheney's deferred compensation package has been in the news. It seems that Cheney, since becoming Vice President, has received $367,691 in "deferred compensation" from Halliburton, the oil services company of which he was formerly CEO. He is scheduled to receive additional hundreds of thousands of dollars this year and in the next several years as well. Oh, and he also happens to have 433,333 unexercised Halliburton stock options, which entitle him to buy shares at prices below the company's current stock price.
This is the same Dick Cheney who just three days ago declared on a nationwide television appearance on Meet the Press: "And since I left Halliburton to become George Bush’s vice president, I’ve severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interests. I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven’t had now for over three years."
And this is the same Halliburton that under the Bush/Cheney reign has been granted several billion dollars worth of no-bid defense department and reconstruction contracts in Iraq.
They think we're very stupid, you know. This gang in the White House thinks they can rob us blind, fatten their wallets, take away our rights, jeopardize our safety, gut our schools and social services, and ruin our economy, the environment and our international prestige. They think they can get away with it because they think we're so stupid that we can't see through their blatant lies.
Let's show them we're not so stupid as they believe.
(Some previous DebtorsPrison thoughts on Halliburton can be found HERE.)
Friday, September 12, 2003
No Wonder Shopping Feels So Good
Courtesy of engrish.com, the hilarious website that features the fractured english that adorns merchandise and advertising in Japan and elsewhere in the non-english-speaking world, comes this shopping bag from the Wing On department store chain based in Hong Kong:
I was all ready to make fun of the language....but the more I read it, the more I felt....damn! Doesn't that exactly describe the shopping experience for most people! "Look it, taste it, feel it and get it. Then please touch yourself in your original way. Now you can see you are fresh and pure, can't you?"
Yes, that's it! The thrill of the search, the discovery, the sensual handling of the object, the orgasmic pleasure of making it yours, and then finally the sweet soul-cleansing as your new acquisition washes away your troubles and your sins, if only for those few short moments before the next unfulfilled desire takes control....
I was all ready to make fun of the language....but the more I read it, the more I felt....damn! Doesn't that exactly describe the shopping experience for most people! "Look it, taste it, feel it and get it. Then please touch yourself in your original way. Now you can see you are fresh and pure, can't you?"
Yes, that's it! The thrill of the search, the discovery, the sensual handling of the object, the orgasmic pleasure of making it yours, and then finally the sweet soul-cleansing as your new acquisition washes away your troubles and your sins, if only for those few short moments before the next unfulfilled desire takes control....
Thursday, September 11, 2003
Looking For Some of That Deferred Compensation
Hmmmm. I've got to check out the Employee Handbook at work to see if maybe I missed the part about "deferred compensation." Maybe I have a little something extra the company owes me.
Something like the $139.5 million in deferred compensation just handed to New York Stock Exchange chairman Richard Grasso. That's 140 million bucks on top of the $97 million in pay he's earned since taking the job in 1995. But doesn't include the additional $48 million more in deferred compensation he chickened out on pocketing after all the uproar over his bonus.
I guess making 97 million bucks over eight years just wasn't enough, especially for someone doing such a wonderful job--presiding over the "irrational exuberance" years of the tech stock bubble and the subsequent 27% freefall of stock market prices. Oh yes, he certainly earned that little $139.5 million bonus envelope tucked into his pocket.
Why do we put up with these obscene amounts of money paid to corporate executives in this country? You who are reading this right now, perhaps you make $25,000 per year, or $50,000 or even a $100,000. Do you really think that what Richard Grasso does is 5000 times (or 2500, or 1200) more difficult, more valuable or more constructive than what you do?
The great majority of people even in these wealthy United States will not have earnings that add up to 2 million dollars total over the course of their entire lifetime, but for some reason Richard Grasso deserves a bonus--a bonus!-- equal to 2 million dollars for every year of his expected lifespan.
A bonus--on top of his $97 million earned in salary--that works out to having $5000 in pocket money for every day of your life from birth to age 75.
A bonus that the Bush administration says should have fewer taxes paid on it, so as not to impoverish or be unfair to poor Richard Grasso.
Why do we accept this? Why?
Something like the $139.5 million in deferred compensation just handed to New York Stock Exchange chairman Richard Grasso. That's 140 million bucks on top of the $97 million in pay he's earned since taking the job in 1995. But doesn't include the additional $48 million more in deferred compensation he chickened out on pocketing after all the uproar over his bonus.
I guess making 97 million bucks over eight years just wasn't enough, especially for someone doing such a wonderful job--presiding over the "irrational exuberance" years of the tech stock bubble and the subsequent 27% freefall of stock market prices. Oh yes, he certainly earned that little $139.5 million bonus envelope tucked into his pocket.
Why do we put up with these obscene amounts of money paid to corporate executives in this country? You who are reading this right now, perhaps you make $25,000 per year, or $50,000 or even a $100,000. Do you really think that what Richard Grasso does is 5000 times (or 2500, or 1200) more difficult, more valuable or more constructive than what you do?
The great majority of people even in these wealthy United States will not have earnings that add up to 2 million dollars total over the course of their entire lifetime, but for some reason Richard Grasso deserves a bonus--a bonus!-- equal to 2 million dollars for every year of his expected lifespan.
A bonus--on top of his $97 million earned in salary--that works out to having $5000 in pocket money for every day of your life from birth to age 75.
A bonus that the Bush administration says should have fewer taxes paid on it, so as not to impoverish or be unfair to poor Richard Grasso.
Why do we accept this? Why?
Friday, August 15, 2003
Just Another Hidden Tax Increase
Government officials were very quick to rule out terrorism as a cause of yesterday's blackout, which crashed 100 power plants, including 22 nuclear reactors, over an area of 9300 square miles and left 50 million people without power for varying times. Michehl Gent, head of the power industry-sponsored North American Electric Reliability Council (sensibly acronymed as NERC rather than NARC) was equally quick to rule out terrorism: ''We don't have any indication of blown-up equipment, so we're almost certain it's not terrorism of any kind.''
Well, forgive me for being skeptical. The government of course is loathe to admit any failures in protecting the country and terrified of getting people worried and, even worse, starting to doubt George W. Bush's leadership priorities. And power industry spokesman Gent's statement misses the point as well: an attack on the electricity supply doesn't need to come from blowing up equipment. It is just equally if not more likely to come from a hacker attack on the computer networks controlling it all. Gent himself described how 300 megawatts of power that were traveling east on the loop and suddenly and unaccountably reversed direction, resulting in an estimated 500 megawatts suddenly moving west, he said.
But it's all speculation. I'm not going to insist it was really a terrorist hack attack, but I also am not about to blindly accept the pronouncements of this government that has been proven so ready to lie to us in the past.
I am, however, very ready to call this massive power outage just another tax hike foisted on us. As former Energy Department cabinet head and current New Mexico governor Bill Richardson said: ''We're the world's greatest superpower, but we have a Third World electricity grid." Well, guess what? It takes money to upgrade antiquated power transmission systems, just like it takes money to maintain highways, safeguard the food supply, buy textbooks for schools and a thousand other details of our society. Unfortunately, we have a president who would rather give tax cuts to the rich than to pay for such things.
So yes, for anyone who had food spoil, who lost work time, who saw their business lose sales, for anyone who suffered losses and inconveniences...that was a hidden tax hike. You have to lose that money because George Bush would rather hand out goodies than pay for infrastructure maintenance. It was just one more of the hundreds of hidden costs we are forced to pay because the Bush administration abdicates its social responsibility.
I'm sure a lot of rich people saw the food in their refrigerators spoil too. They can afford to replace it. I hope you who are reading this can afford it as well.
Well, forgive me for being skeptical. The government of course is loathe to admit any failures in protecting the country and terrified of getting people worried and, even worse, starting to doubt George W. Bush's leadership priorities. And power industry spokesman Gent's statement misses the point as well: an attack on the electricity supply doesn't need to come from blowing up equipment. It is just equally if not more likely to come from a hacker attack on the computer networks controlling it all. Gent himself described how 300 megawatts of power that were traveling east on the loop and suddenly and unaccountably reversed direction, resulting in an estimated 500 megawatts suddenly moving west, he said.
But it's all speculation. I'm not going to insist it was really a terrorist hack attack, but I also am not about to blindly accept the pronouncements of this government that has been proven so ready to lie to us in the past.
I am, however, very ready to call this massive power outage just another tax hike foisted on us. As former Energy Department cabinet head and current New Mexico governor Bill Richardson said: ''We're the world's greatest superpower, but we have a Third World electricity grid." Well, guess what? It takes money to upgrade antiquated power transmission systems, just like it takes money to maintain highways, safeguard the food supply, buy textbooks for schools and a thousand other details of our society. Unfortunately, we have a president who would rather give tax cuts to the rich than to pay for such things.
So yes, for anyone who had food spoil, who lost work time, who saw their business lose sales, for anyone who suffered losses and inconveniences...that was a hidden tax hike. You have to lose that money because George Bush would rather hand out goodies than pay for infrastructure maintenance. It was just one more of the hundreds of hidden costs we are forced to pay because the Bush administration abdicates its social responsibility.
I'm sure a lot of rich people saw the food in their refrigerators spoil too. They can afford to replace it. I hope you who are reading this can afford it as well.
Sunday, August 03, 2003
Don't Pee for Me, Argentina
Okay, they're taking away your pensions, your pay raises, your overtime, your job security, your benefits...if you even still have a job, that is. But now they want to take away your bathroom breaks. Check this out:
Reuters, August 1, 2003, 10:18am
Buenos Aires, Argentina - Supermarket cashiers in Argentina are being forced to wear nappies to keep them from taking toilet breaks at work, a union says.
Female cashiers in western Mendoza province must wear adult diapers in case "cold, nerves, pressure or stress" provoke incontinence, union official Jorge Cordova told local news agency Diarios y Noticias on Thursday.
Cordova refused to name the supermarket but he did say the chain is backed by foreign capital, said Sandra Varela, Mendoza's labour sub-secretary.
"The truth is, it's difficult to imagine a line of 20 adult cashiers wearing diapers for eight hours," said Varela, who is investigating the matter.
"In seventeen years as a labour lawyer, I've never heard anything like this before," she added.
Reuters, August 1, 2003, 10:18am
Buenos Aires, Argentina - Supermarket cashiers in Argentina are being forced to wear nappies to keep them from taking toilet breaks at work, a union says.
Female cashiers in western Mendoza province must wear adult diapers in case "cold, nerves, pressure or stress" provoke incontinence, union official Jorge Cordova told local news agency Diarios y Noticias on Thursday.
Cordova refused to name the supermarket but he did say the chain is backed by foreign capital, said Sandra Varela, Mendoza's labour sub-secretary.
"The truth is, it's difficult to imagine a line of 20 adult cashiers wearing diapers for eight hours," said Varela, who is investigating the matter.
"In seventeen years as a labour lawyer, I've never heard anything like this before," she added.
.
My Life, Brought to Me by Snapple
At the end of a fine meal of Chinese takeout eaten as usual in bed, my wife and I turned to our fortune cookies. Here is what we both got:
Yes, my fortune now has corporate sponsorship. This annoys me in so many ways. First and foremost, I'd like to be able to eat a goddamn cookie without being subjected to an advertisement. Second, it's not even a real fortune...it's a gag. Jokes come on bubble gum wrappers, not in fortune cookies. I need my fortune cookie fortune, I rely on them, I live my life by them. Third, the thing isn't even printed properly, with the last righthand letters cut off. Doesn't Snapple care about quality control? Finally, we both got the same 'fortune', which I can't seem to remember ever happening before in all the decades I've been sharing Chinese food with people. I can only conclude that the Snapple people are utterly barren of creativity and were able to think up only a very small number of these unfunny pseudo-fortunes.
You know, I actually think Snapple makes some pretty tasty ice teas, though I don't like their fruit drinks. But they've pissed me off now, so I won't be buying any more of their products. They've lost my money; let them live on lo mein.
At the end of a fine meal of Chinese takeout eaten as usual in bed, my wife and I turned to our fortune cookies. Here is what we both got:
Yes, my fortune now has corporate sponsorship. This annoys me in so many ways. First and foremost, I'd like to be able to eat a goddamn cookie without being subjected to an advertisement. Second, it's not even a real fortune...it's a gag. Jokes come on bubble gum wrappers, not in fortune cookies. I need my fortune cookie fortune, I rely on them, I live my life by them. Third, the thing isn't even printed properly, with the last righthand letters cut off. Doesn't Snapple care about quality control? Finally, we both got the same 'fortune', which I can't seem to remember ever happening before in all the decades I've been sharing Chinese food with people. I can only conclude that the Snapple people are utterly barren of creativity and were able to think up only a very small number of these unfunny pseudo-fortunes.
You know, I actually think Snapple makes some pretty tasty ice teas, though I don't like their fruit drinks. But they've pissed me off now, so I won't be buying any more of their products. They've lost my money; let them live on lo mein.
Thursday, July 31, 2003
My Big Fat Tax Cut
My share of the federal tax cut has started showing up my paycheck. I'm getting about three dollars and fifty cents per week more. Wow! $3.50! Now I just have to decide whether I want to spend it (and on what) or invest it.
$3.50! Not that I'm complaining. Hell, I still stop and bend over to pick up pennies off the sidewalk. It's found money, and after all, I didn't even want this tax cut in the first place (read my earlier rants against the Bush tax cuts HERE and also HERE.
I know what George W. Bush wants me to with it. Go crazy with it. Buy me a little something I've been hankering for. As he explained it in Philadelphia the other day, "When people have more of their own money, they will demand a good or service... and it's much more likely someone will be able to find a job....When people get checks, it helps them with their lives."
There's just one little problem with Georgie Boy's tax cuts. He gave the greatest portion of them to the rich. Understand that fully two-thirds of the United States economy is driven by consumer spending. It is consumer spending that has been keeping the economy somewhat afloat through the past couple years despite stock market stumbles, terrorist attacks and bad government.
Consumers have kept buying not because their pay has gone way up (it is falling in relative terms), because the job market is booming (unemployment and underemployment continue to rise) or because the economy has been booming. No, they have kept buying because...Hell, I don't know why. Sheer perversity? Blind optimism? Total ignorance? Utter weakness before the consumer culture that exhorts us all to buy buy buy? (And God knows we've shared in this both through out credit card debt and through our credit card debt and our refinancing.
If you want tax cuts to stimulate an economy that is two-thirds consumer spending, then wouldn't it make sense to give the bulk of those tax cuts to the people who have a pent-up desire to spend? Give money to the people who have either been unable to buy things or to those people who have jeopardized their futures by buying on credit and blowing the equity built up in their homes?
But no. Instead Bush gave most of the tax cuts to the rich. And here's a news flash for you: The rich don't need the money. They don't have any pent-up desire to spend and buy. All along, if they wanted something, they just went out and bought it. If they wanted a bag of King-Size M&Ms, they just went out and bought one. If they wanted to eat at the most expensive restaurant in town, they picked up the phone and made a reservation. If their Shih-Tzu shit on their oriental carpet, they just replaced it (the carpet and maybe the dog too), and if their Jaguar got a ding on the fender, they just bought another one.
The rich have already been spending to their hearts' content, and thay have no pent-up desire. The wads of money being stuffed into their pockets by the Bush administration isn't going to go go into the economy and create jobs. It's going to go into tax-sheltered savings and investments, contributing to economic growth about as much as stuffing it under the mattress.
The Bush government is flipping pittances to the poor and the middle class, while the rich are laughing and laughing....
$3.50! Not that I'm complaining. Hell, I still stop and bend over to pick up pennies off the sidewalk. It's found money, and after all, I didn't even want this tax cut in the first place (read my earlier rants against the Bush tax cuts HERE and also HERE.
I know what George W. Bush wants me to with it. Go crazy with it. Buy me a little something I've been hankering for. As he explained it in Philadelphia the other day, "When people have more of their own money, they will demand a good or service... and it's much more likely someone will be able to find a job....When people get checks, it helps them with their lives."
There's just one little problem with Georgie Boy's tax cuts. He gave the greatest portion of them to the rich. Understand that fully two-thirds of the United States economy is driven by consumer spending. It is consumer spending that has been keeping the economy somewhat afloat through the past couple years despite stock market stumbles, terrorist attacks and bad government.
Consumers have kept buying not because their pay has gone way up (it is falling in relative terms), because the job market is booming (unemployment and underemployment continue to rise) or because the economy has been booming. No, they have kept buying because...Hell, I don't know why. Sheer perversity? Blind optimism? Total ignorance? Utter weakness before the consumer culture that exhorts us all to buy buy buy? (And God knows we've shared in this both through out credit card debt and through our credit card debt and our refinancing.
If you want tax cuts to stimulate an economy that is two-thirds consumer spending, then wouldn't it make sense to give the bulk of those tax cuts to the people who have a pent-up desire to spend? Give money to the people who have either been unable to buy things or to those people who have jeopardized their futures by buying on credit and blowing the equity built up in their homes?
But no. Instead Bush gave most of the tax cuts to the rich. And here's a news flash for you: The rich don't need the money. They don't have any pent-up desire to spend and buy. All along, if they wanted something, they just went out and bought it. If they wanted a bag of King-Size M&Ms, they just went out and bought one. If they wanted to eat at the most expensive restaurant in town, they picked up the phone and made a reservation. If their Shih-Tzu shit on their oriental carpet, they just replaced it (the carpet and maybe the dog too), and if their Jaguar got a ding on the fender, they just bought another one.
The rich have already been spending to their hearts' content, and thay have no pent-up desire. The wads of money being stuffed into their pockets by the Bush administration isn't going to go go into the economy and create jobs. It's going to go into tax-sheltered savings and investments, contributing to economic growth about as much as stuffing it under the mattress.
The Bush government is flipping pittances to the poor and the middle class, while the rich are laughing and laughing....
Sunday, July 20, 2003
Bush Claims to Denounce Slavery
I suppose I can say I was pleased to read that George W. Bush took the time during his August 8 visit to Senegal to make a speech denouncing slavery. I know it's not exactly a bold policy statement, but I try to be fair and give credit where credit is due. Most of the things that come out of Bush's mouth are so misguided, ignorant and occasionally truly evil, so it is refreshing to hear him get one right. He came right out and said it: Slavery is bad. Way to go, George. Of course, denouncing slavery is sure to anger a lot of your rightwing supporters, but give them a few more tax cuts and I'm sure they'll return to the fold.
Unfortunately, every time I pick up the newspaper, I read something that leads me to believe that Bush's heart wasn't really in that denunciation of slavery. If he and his corporate cronies have their way, people will be forced to work harder and longer for less pay and fewer benefits. Not slavery, exactly, but as close to it as you can get away with.
Take, for example, the new rules on overtime pay being pushed by the Bush administration. By reclassifying many job categories to ones which don't require overtime, the new rules will free employers to demand more hours out of their workers without having to worry about paying them anything extra.
As a letter written by Senator Edward Kennedy and signed by 42 other senators pointed out: "Our citizens are working longer hours than ever before -- longer than any other industrial nation....At least one in five employees now has a work week that exceeds 50 hours. Protecting the 40-hour work week is vital to balancing work responsibilities and family needs. It is certainly not family friendly to require employees to work more hours for less pay."
Not that corporate bigwigs lose much sleep worrying about having to pay their workers too much. A June 11, 2003 Wall Street Journal article makes clear the anti-labor hubris currently reigning in the business world: "New Recipe for Cost Savings: Replace Expensive Workers." (Sorry...no free link to the article.) That's right. The article details how more and more companies have simply started to lay off or fire long-term employees, wiping out those pesky years of accumulated pay raises. They then start out fresh with a new batch of people at entry-level pay. More and more, our working lives will consist of a series of entry-level jobs--if you are lucky enough to find a job--until you retire on your eaten-away retirement funds and bankrupt Social Security.
And that's assuming you remain able to serve the purposes of the corporate masters. If you should falter, don't expect much sympathy from the overseers. As the July 14, 2003 Wall Street Journal explains, "To Save on Health-Care Costs, Firms Fire Disabled Workers." The article details how more and more companies are now simply firing workers as soon as they qualify for long-term disability, whether from illness or job injury. Goodbye paycheck, goodbye health insurance, goodbye company-sponsored life insurance. Tough luck, so long, get out of here.
Well, George Bush, I really am happy you had the courage to stand in the ruins of a slave-trading port in Senegal and declare slavery to be a bad thing. I only wish you had the guts to say the same thing standing in the White House Press Room.
Unfortunately, every time I pick up the newspaper, I read something that leads me to believe that Bush's heart wasn't really in that denunciation of slavery. If he and his corporate cronies have their way, people will be forced to work harder and longer for less pay and fewer benefits. Not slavery, exactly, but as close to it as you can get away with.
Take, for example, the new rules on overtime pay being pushed by the Bush administration. By reclassifying many job categories to ones which don't require overtime, the new rules will free employers to demand more hours out of their workers without having to worry about paying them anything extra.
As a letter written by Senator Edward Kennedy and signed by 42 other senators pointed out: "Our citizens are working longer hours than ever before -- longer than any other industrial nation....At least one in five employees now has a work week that exceeds 50 hours. Protecting the 40-hour work week is vital to balancing work responsibilities and family needs. It is certainly not family friendly to require employees to work more hours for less pay."
Not that corporate bigwigs lose much sleep worrying about having to pay their workers too much. A June 11, 2003 Wall Street Journal article makes clear the anti-labor hubris currently reigning in the business world: "New Recipe for Cost Savings: Replace Expensive Workers." (Sorry...no free link to the article.) That's right. The article details how more and more companies have simply started to lay off or fire long-term employees, wiping out those pesky years of accumulated pay raises. They then start out fresh with a new batch of people at entry-level pay. More and more, our working lives will consist of a series of entry-level jobs--if you are lucky enough to find a job--until you retire on your eaten-away retirement funds and bankrupt Social Security.
And that's assuming you remain able to serve the purposes of the corporate masters. If you should falter, don't expect much sympathy from the overseers. As the July 14, 2003 Wall Street Journal explains, "To Save on Health-Care Costs, Firms Fire Disabled Workers." The article details how more and more companies are now simply firing workers as soon as they qualify for long-term disability, whether from illness or job injury. Goodbye paycheck, goodbye health insurance, goodbye company-sponsored life insurance. Tough luck, so long, get out of here.
Well, George Bush, I really am happy you had the courage to stand in the ruins of a slave-trading port in Senegal and declare slavery to be a bad thing. I only wish you had the guts to say the same thing standing in the White House Press Room.
Monday, July 14, 2003
George Bush Bucks the Buck
I wonder what ever happened to that sign President Harry Truman is said to have kept on his desk, the one that said "The Buck Stops Here." Obviously, it is nowhere to be found on the presidential desk of George W. Bush. No, when his State of the Union address lie about Iraq seeking nuclear material in Africa was exposed, Bush was happy last week to let CIA director George Tenet take the blame.
I don't know which I find more disgusting: Bush's small-minded shirking of responsibility and insistence that others take the blame for his screw-ups, or the blase way in which he as much as admits that he is too ill-informed, unintelligent and incurious to question anything put in front of him.
It's bad enough that Bush allows others to have their reputations besmirched to protect his own butt, but unfortunately he plays more dangerous games of letting others bear responsibility for his ignorance. Witness his now-famous remarks at the White House on July 2:
The people who are going to bear the responsibility for his childish and mindless machismo are the soldiers who are injured or who die in Iraq and elsewhere when the enemy does indeed bring it on. His behavior belongs on an elementary school playground rather than in the White House press room.
George Bush loves to play the big military hero, with all his macho posturing and his photo ops in military garb on aircraft carriers. Of course, his real military record is one of cowardice and deceit, for which he really should have been court-marshalled. It is a story that bears constant repeating, so here it is.
A recent letter by military man M.G. Johancen to the Annapolis Capitol states the facts very succinctly, so I will reproduce them below. (The original letter can be read in the newspaper's archive HERE at the bottom of the page, and thanks to the blog williamp.blogspot.com for the original tip.)
If these few tidbits make you want to read more deeply about Bush's desertion of duty, the following links will provide more info: tompaine.com, motherjones.com, or talion.com.
I don't know which I find more disgusting: Bush's small-minded shirking of responsibility and insistence that others take the blame for his screw-ups, or the blase way in which he as much as admits that he is too ill-informed, unintelligent and incurious to question anything put in front of him.
It's bad enough that Bush allows others to have their reputations besmirched to protect his own butt, but unfortunately he plays more dangerous games of letting others bear responsibility for his ignorance. Witness his now-famous remarks at the White House on July 2:
"There are some who feel like that conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is: Bring them on. We have the force necessary to deal with the situation."
The people who are going to bear the responsibility for his childish and mindless machismo are the soldiers who are injured or who die in Iraq and elsewhere when the enemy does indeed bring it on. His behavior belongs on an elementary school playground rather than in the White House press room.
George Bush loves to play the big military hero, with all his macho posturing and his photo ops in military garb on aircraft carriers. Of course, his real military record is one of cowardice and deceit, for which he really should have been court-marshalled. It is a story that bears constant repeating, so here it is.
A recent letter by military man M.G. Johancen to the Annapolis Capitol states the facts very succinctly, so I will reproduce them below. (The original letter can be read in the newspaper's archive HERE at the bottom of the page, and thanks to the blog williamp.blogspot.com for the original tip.)
"President Bush's theatrics aboard an aircraft carrier were yet another effort to portray him as a warrior. This is his "military record":
--Despite scoring 25 out of 100 points on the National Guard's entrance exam, he jumped 500 qualified men for a commission.
--Former Texas House speaker Ben Barnes testified under oath that he exerted influence to get Mr. Bush a slot in the unit.
--In Mr. Bush's final year of obligated service (1972-73), he did not fly at all and absented himself from duty. He lost his flying status in 1972 after failing to appear for his annual physical.
--According to his commander, there was no record of Mr. Bush attending training for that period. We in the military call that being absent without leave.
--During Mr. Bush's presidential campaign, his staff couldn't provide any proof of service for that period.
Instead of being a top gun, Mr. Bush appears to be the little man who wasn't there."
If these few tidbits make you want to read more deeply about Bush's desertion of duty, the following links will provide more info: tompaine.com, motherjones.com, or talion.com.
Sunday, July 13, 2003
Back to the Blog
My apologies for the six week hiatus from this blog. It's been a busy period of family obligations, home repairs and job changes, and I've felt a bit distracted. Perhaps a bit overwhelmed by a sense of futility as well, reading the newspaper or surfing the web every day and seeing the frighteningly bad politics, greedy self-serving policies and outright lies and deceit that this non-elected U.S. president and his cronies are foisting on the world. It's enough to send a left-minded activist into a funk once in a while, but enough! I'm back and ready to blog.
There has been one big change in our lives that will necessitate a few changes in the mission of this blog. Our credit card debt is gone. POOF!
Well, it sort of disappeared. Actually, we just folded it into a new mortgage, in effect mortgaging our future. Here's the deal in a nutshell: Our old mortgage had about $29,000 left to go. In the meantime, property values had risen to make our house worth more than we'd originally paid for it. So we refinanced our mortgage at a new higher loan based on the higher property value. Borrowed $60,000, of which $29,000 paid off the old mortgage, $2500 went for fees, and $25,000 went to pay off the credit card debt.
What did we get out of this deal? An interest rate on our mortgage almost 3% lower than our previous one, and a little bit lower than the excellent interest rates I'd had the credit card debt locked into (Click Here to get the details on the debt interest rates). A monthly mortgage payment around $130 per month more than our old one, but now without not also having to come up with at least $500 per month of minimum payments on the credit cards.
What did we lose? Well, we lost all the equity we'd built up after years of paying our old mortgage. So the debt really didn't disappear, wasn't actually paid off in the truest sense. We simply mortgaged our future, gave up the equity we'd built in our home, to get rid of a present burden. Although the interest rates on the debt had been as favorable as you're going to get, the minimum payments were incredibly burdensome. Getting so deep into debt had been a mistake, and the burden had become such that trying to undo the mistake was so constricting our lives that we had to do something.
So now it's a fresh start. As for the blog, yes, the debt had been a sort of organizing principle for it, a hook by which to examine the politics, economics and social forces of this consumer culture we live in. That will remain the focus of this blog.
Some readers may feel nevertheless that the blog has been drained of its drama. Sure, the political commentary and social rants might be interesting, but what you really wanted to know was whether or not we could ever get out of debt. I confess that in a perverse way even I kind of miss having that huge debt...it becomes a source of perverse pride, of identity, almost an addiction.
Well, maybe the debt is gone, but some drama remains. After all, we managed to get ourselves into a financial mess before (Read How Here), and there's no guarantee that it won't happen again. The consumer culture beast is devious and powerful, and life can be full of some unpredictable twists. Stay tuned....
There has been one big change in our lives that will necessitate a few changes in the mission of this blog. Our credit card debt is gone. POOF!
Well, it sort of disappeared. Actually, we just folded it into a new mortgage, in effect mortgaging our future. Here's the deal in a nutshell: Our old mortgage had about $29,000 left to go. In the meantime, property values had risen to make our house worth more than we'd originally paid for it. So we refinanced our mortgage at a new higher loan based on the higher property value. Borrowed $60,000, of which $29,000 paid off the old mortgage, $2500 went for fees, and $25,000 went to pay off the credit card debt.
What did we get out of this deal? An interest rate on our mortgage almost 3% lower than our previous one, and a little bit lower than the excellent interest rates I'd had the credit card debt locked into (Click Here to get the details on the debt interest rates). A monthly mortgage payment around $130 per month more than our old one, but now without not also having to come up with at least $500 per month of minimum payments on the credit cards.
What did we lose? Well, we lost all the equity we'd built up after years of paying our old mortgage. So the debt really didn't disappear, wasn't actually paid off in the truest sense. We simply mortgaged our future, gave up the equity we'd built in our home, to get rid of a present burden. Although the interest rates on the debt had been as favorable as you're going to get, the minimum payments were incredibly burdensome. Getting so deep into debt had been a mistake, and the burden had become such that trying to undo the mistake was so constricting our lives that we had to do something.
So now it's a fresh start. As for the blog, yes, the debt had been a sort of organizing principle for it, a hook by which to examine the politics, economics and social forces of this consumer culture we live in. That will remain the focus of this blog.
Some readers may feel nevertheless that the blog has been drained of its drama. Sure, the political commentary and social rants might be interesting, but what you really wanted to know was whether or not we could ever get out of debt. I confess that in a perverse way even I kind of miss having that huge debt...it becomes a source of perverse pride, of identity, almost an addiction.
Well, maybe the debt is gone, but some drama remains. After all, we managed to get ourselves into a financial mess before (Read How Here), and there's no guarantee that it won't happen again. The consumer culture beast is devious and powerful, and life can be full of some unpredictable twists. Stay tuned....
Tuesday, May 27, 2003
The $600 Prom
According to an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer, the average 17-year old attending their high school senior prom will spend $638. Regular readers of this blog probably expect that I’ll rant and rave against this shallow, self-indulgent waste of money, but guess what? I can't quite get my shorts in a knot over this one.
It's not that I have fond memories of my own prom...I never went to it way back in my graduation year of 1973. I would have been happy to skip the graduation ceremony too if my parents hadn't forced me to go...high school was a wretched period of my life. (My parents also insisted I buy my class ring--they paid--assuring me that once I entered the adult world I would look back on high school as a treasured memory and be glad I had that ring. Thirty years later, the whole 'treasured memory' thing still hasn't kicked in.)
I don’t have any great feelings towards prom-goers in general either. Every year around this time, limos clog the streets of my city, their windows dangling boisterous teens acting like 10-year-olds to celebrate their rite of passage into adulthood. Not a pleasant sight, no matter how daring the décolletage of the prom gown.
I do, however, have a soft spot for spending money on experiences rather than things. It is what has made me choose, despite the relatively low income I have earned my entire life, to travel as often as possible, trips that have ranged in length from one week to one year and that have taken me to 30 countries on five continents. It is why I find it so seductive to spend money on eating out, seeing a movie and going to a play or concert, but agonize over expenses for household items. It is why I can be miserly when it comes to buying clothes but fairly free-spending when it comes to buying good food with which to prepare our meals.
Experiences are freeing, events that expand your mind and weave your memories into something seemingly larger than any individual life. Experiences are connections to other people, to the world in which we live, to our souls. An experience lasts for as long as our memories do and can always be carried with you without needing to be packed. Our memories of our experiences can be put to many uses, and even years down the line can still thrill us.
As for things…well, yes, things are necessary and certainly can contribute to the pleasure of one’s life, and yet they can also weigh you down. Most things don’t last as long as memories. Things have to be cleaned, fixed, packed, moved. Things can be stolen, broken, tripped over. A thing usually serves a single static purpose. We tend to become so used to the objects in our lives that we even stop seeing them.
While a prom is not the sort of experience that matters to me, I know that for many people it is a treasured memory. The thrill of spending too much on that gown or tux, and yet knowing that you are going to look fabulous, feel like you are starring in some romantic evening. Those mental pictures you have of yourself stepping out of that limo or twirling on the dance floor will warm you for years to come. $638 per person—that’s $1276 per couple—is utterly outrageous. But isn’t that part of the thrill of the experience? It’s not likely that most of us will often have the opportunity to blow that kind of money on a single evening of pleasure. Go for it.
It's not that I have fond memories of my own prom...I never went to it way back in my graduation year of 1973. I would have been happy to skip the graduation ceremony too if my parents hadn't forced me to go...high school was a wretched period of my life. (My parents also insisted I buy my class ring--they paid--assuring me that once I entered the adult world I would look back on high school as a treasured memory and be glad I had that ring. Thirty years later, the whole 'treasured memory' thing still hasn't kicked in.)
I don’t have any great feelings towards prom-goers in general either. Every year around this time, limos clog the streets of my city, their windows dangling boisterous teens acting like 10-year-olds to celebrate their rite of passage into adulthood. Not a pleasant sight, no matter how daring the décolletage of the prom gown.
I do, however, have a soft spot for spending money on experiences rather than things. It is what has made me choose, despite the relatively low income I have earned my entire life, to travel as often as possible, trips that have ranged in length from one week to one year and that have taken me to 30 countries on five continents. It is why I find it so seductive to spend money on eating out, seeing a movie and going to a play or concert, but agonize over expenses for household items. It is why I can be miserly when it comes to buying clothes but fairly free-spending when it comes to buying good food with which to prepare our meals.
Experiences are freeing, events that expand your mind and weave your memories into something seemingly larger than any individual life. Experiences are connections to other people, to the world in which we live, to our souls. An experience lasts for as long as our memories do and can always be carried with you without needing to be packed. Our memories of our experiences can be put to many uses, and even years down the line can still thrill us.
As for things…well, yes, things are necessary and certainly can contribute to the pleasure of one’s life, and yet they can also weigh you down. Most things don’t last as long as memories. Things have to be cleaned, fixed, packed, moved. Things can be stolen, broken, tripped over. A thing usually serves a single static purpose. We tend to become so used to the objects in our lives that we even stop seeing them.
While a prom is not the sort of experience that matters to me, I know that for many people it is a treasured memory. The thrill of spending too much on that gown or tux, and yet knowing that you are going to look fabulous, feel like you are starring in some romantic evening. Those mental pictures you have of yourself stepping out of that limo or twirling on the dance floor will warm you for years to come. $638 per person—that’s $1276 per couple—is utterly outrageous. But isn’t that part of the thrill of the experience? It’s not likely that most of us will often have the opportunity to blow that kind of money on a single evening of pleasure. Go for it.
Sunday, May 18, 2003
The Rich Are Just Like You and I
Just had to pass along this bit from a May 17, 2003 New York Times article about the how the Bush propaganda team strives to manipulate its media images:
Can you believe the government thinks we're so stupid that by simply asking rich people to take off their ties they can fool working stiffs into believing the Bush tax cuts don't overwhelmingly favor the wealthy? Ummm....we're not that stupid, are we?
C'mon people, get angry! Say no to these tax cuts that help the rich get richer while deepening the government's neglect of our schools, our libraries, our environment, our retirement, our economy...of our very future.
"On Tuesday, at a speech promoting his economic plan in Indianapolis, White House aides went so far as to ask people in the crowd behind Mr. Bush to take off their ties, WISH-TV in Indianapolis reported, so they would look more like the ordinary folk the president said would benefit from his tax cut."
Can you believe the government thinks we're so stupid that by simply asking rich people to take off their ties they can fool working stiffs into believing the Bush tax cuts don't overwhelmingly favor the wealthy? Ummm....we're not that stupid, are we?
C'mon people, get angry! Say no to these tax cuts that help the rich get richer while deepening the government's neglect of our schools, our libraries, our environment, our retirement, our economy...of our very future.
Saturday, May 17, 2003
Who Needs To Be A Billionaire?
I keep thinking about what I’m going to do with that billion dollars once I win Pepsi’s Billion Dollar Sweepstakes. First, of course, I’ll pay off my gigantic $25,000 credit card bill. And after that, I suppose I’ll give a lot of it away.
That’s right. I plan to just give a lot of it away. Give wonderful, life-enhancing chunks to all my friends. Donate sizeable sums to my favorite charities, environmental organizations and political action groups. The truth is, I really don’t need a billion dollars. I’d rather have the money go towards doing good things for other people. (And by the way, here’s a link to Cat Whisperings, another blogger who feels the same way.)
Let me say that again: I don’t need a billion dollars. Even more important: NOBODY needs a billion dollars. Nobody. There is not a single person on this planet who needs a billion dollars to live on.
The BillionSweeps website asks you the question: How long would it take you to spend one billion dollars? It then provides the answer: If you spent $1000 every day, it would take you 2700 years to go broke.
Stupid answer, since even with a billion dollars to buy the best medical care, no one is going to live for 2700 years. A more instructive scenario is this: If someone wadded a billion dollars into your tiny little fist at birth and you lived for 75 years, how much money would you have each day? The answer is $36,500. Every single day of your life.
Of course, that’s assuming you just kept the billion piled under your mattress. Say you invested that billion with a very modest annual rate of return of 5%. How much interest could you earn each year? Fifty million dollars. That’s right. You would have fifty million dollars to live on each and every year, and the original billion would remain available for your friends to use to throw one hell of a wake after you died.
Hey, wait a minute.
Someone who has a billion dollars has $36,500 per day at their disposal over the course of a 75 year lifespan. That’s obscene, but after all, there are only 222 people worth one billion or more in the United States, according to the Forbes Magazine annual list of the world's wealthiest people.
There are, however, a lot more people who have annual incomes of at least fifty million dollars. And guess what? If you make 50 million bucks per year, that gives you $136,986 to spend per day, almost four times what our lifetime billion would afford. Hell, someone who makes a paltry $13 million per year has as much daily pocket money as our lifetime billionaire.
So now the question becomes: Does anyone really need to earn $50 million dollars per year? Does anyone even need to earn $13 million? Why do we accept this? And why in the hell aren’t we filling the streets in protest against Bush wanting to give huge tax breaks to the rich?
That’s right. I plan to just give a lot of it away. Give wonderful, life-enhancing chunks to all my friends. Donate sizeable sums to my favorite charities, environmental organizations and political action groups. The truth is, I really don’t need a billion dollars. I’d rather have the money go towards doing good things for other people. (And by the way, here’s a link to Cat Whisperings, another blogger who feels the same way.)
Let me say that again: I don’t need a billion dollars. Even more important: NOBODY needs a billion dollars. Nobody. There is not a single person on this planet who needs a billion dollars to live on.
The BillionSweeps website asks you the question: How long would it take you to spend one billion dollars? It then provides the answer: If you spent $1000 every day, it would take you 2700 years to go broke.
Stupid answer, since even with a billion dollars to buy the best medical care, no one is going to live for 2700 years. A more instructive scenario is this: If someone wadded a billion dollars into your tiny little fist at birth and you lived for 75 years, how much money would you have each day? The answer is $36,500. Every single day of your life.
Of course, that’s assuming you just kept the billion piled under your mattress. Say you invested that billion with a very modest annual rate of return of 5%. How much interest could you earn each year? Fifty million dollars. That’s right. You would have fifty million dollars to live on each and every year, and the original billion would remain available for your friends to use to throw one hell of a wake after you died.
Hey, wait a minute.
Someone who has a billion dollars has $36,500 per day at their disposal over the course of a 75 year lifespan. That’s obscene, but after all, there are only 222 people worth one billion or more in the United States, according to the Forbes Magazine annual list of the world's wealthiest people.
There are, however, a lot more people who have annual incomes of at least fifty million dollars. And guess what? If you make 50 million bucks per year, that gives you $136,986 to spend per day, almost four times what our lifetime billion would afford. Hell, someone who makes a paltry $13 million per year has as much daily pocket money as our lifetime billionaire.
So now the question becomes: Does anyone really need to earn $50 million dollars per year? Does anyone even need to earn $13 million? Why do we accept this? And why in the hell aren’t we filling the streets in protest against Bush wanting to give huge tax breaks to the rich?
Thursday, May 08, 2003
Getting Ready for a Billion Bucks
Today I put my first entry in to win one billion dollars. Yes, you read that right. One billion dollars. The contest is sponsored by Pepsi, which gives you an idea of how much money these soft drink companies make. I hate the stuff myself, but my wife likes a Diet Pepsi now and then, so I can get the pieces necessary to enter.
(Yes, it's true, Pepsi: I don't like your beverage. I hate Coke too. Not only do I not like the soft drinks of you and your competitor, I hate the way you both have steamrollered your way into being global beverages, how you buy up local brands of soft drinks around the world, how you suck up the increasingly scarce water supply in so many poor countries, how you fill our children with sugar and caffeine, I hate your asinine lifestyle advertising that wants us to believe that drinking Pepsi will make our lives better. No, I don't like you. Nevertheless, according to the law, none of this should have any bearing on my eligibility for your sweepstakes, and if I win your billion I'll take it. And if I don't win it and somehow evidence leaks that you blackballed my entries because I publicly declared my loathing your shit-brown sugar water, I'll sue you for ten billion bucks.)
Oops! Did I write that? Oh my God, I didn't mean it! For a billion bucks, I'll do anything. I'll even drink a Pepsi live on international TV, giving a smiling, satisfied burp afterward. I'll bathe in it, I'll name my firstborn Pepsi, I'll swim 500 laps in a pool filled with it, I'll wear Pepsi-labeled clothes 24/7, I'll live on nothing but Pepsi for the rest of my days. Just please please please give me a chance. I really need that billion dollars to pay off my credit card debt.
Just kidding. You decide which of the above two paragraphs I'm just kidding about.
I'm sure you're dying to know how you can get your own shot at a billion dollars. Just go to www.BillionSweeps.com to find out. The billion is to be given away on live television in the fall...it is not yet clear as to what indignities the final contestants will have to subject themselves.
A billion dollars! When I was a kid, there was a TV game show called "The $10,000 Pyramid," and that was a big deal. Then the prizes went up to $100,000. Then came "Who Wants To Be a Millionaire," though even a million bucks wasn't rich enough for me to take being in the presence of Regis Philbin for even thirty seconds. And now someone is giving away a billion dollars. Talk about inflation.
(Yes, it's true, Pepsi: I don't like your beverage. I hate Coke too. Not only do I not like the soft drinks of you and your competitor, I hate the way you both have steamrollered your way into being global beverages, how you buy up local brands of soft drinks around the world, how you suck up the increasingly scarce water supply in so many poor countries, how you fill our children with sugar and caffeine, I hate your asinine lifestyle advertising that wants us to believe that drinking Pepsi will make our lives better. No, I don't like you. Nevertheless, according to the law, none of this should have any bearing on my eligibility for your sweepstakes, and if I win your billion I'll take it. And if I don't win it and somehow evidence leaks that you blackballed my entries because I publicly declared my loathing your shit-brown sugar water, I'll sue you for ten billion bucks.)
Oops! Did I write that? Oh my God, I didn't mean it! For a billion bucks, I'll do anything. I'll even drink a Pepsi live on international TV, giving a smiling, satisfied burp afterward. I'll bathe in it, I'll name my firstborn Pepsi, I'll swim 500 laps in a pool filled with it, I'll wear Pepsi-labeled clothes 24/7, I'll live on nothing but Pepsi for the rest of my days. Just please please please give me a chance. I really need that billion dollars to pay off my credit card debt.
Just kidding. You decide which of the above two paragraphs I'm just kidding about.
I'm sure you're dying to know how you can get your own shot at a billion dollars. Just go to www.BillionSweeps.com to find out. The billion is to be given away on live television in the fall...it is not yet clear as to what indignities the final contestants will have to subject themselves.
A billion dollars! When I was a kid, there was a TV game show called "The $10,000 Pyramid," and that was a big deal. Then the prizes went up to $100,000. Then came "Who Wants To Be a Millionaire," though even a million bucks wasn't rich enough for me to take being in the presence of Regis Philbin for even thirty seconds. And now someone is giving away a billion dollars. Talk about inflation.
Monday, May 05, 2003
William Bennett, Public Moralist, Craps Out
I see in an article in Newsweek Online and in the Washington Monthly Online that William Bennett, the tsk-tsking, finger-wagging conservative moralist, author of The Book of Virtue and The Death of Outrage, has a little gambling problem.
No, make that a BIG gambling problem, with losses estimated by casinos at over eight million dollars over the past decade. Last July 12, he dropped $340,000 at Caesars in Atlantic City, and just a month ago gave up half a million bucks at the Bellagio in Las Vegas. Over one two month stretch, he wired a casino 1.4 million dollars to cover his losses. The play this high-minded public intellectual evidently favors is the most mindless sort of gambling: $500 a pull slot machines and video poker machines.
Although he has built his career on castigating people for giving into their weaknesses and society for coddling them, Bennett sees no problem with his gambling. When asked about it, he spouts responses that are astounding for either their hypocrisy or their self-delusion: “I’ve gambled all my life, and it’s never been a moral issue with me. I liked church bingo when I was growing up....I view it as drinking; if you can’t handle it, don’t do it."
Though casino records show his substantial losses over the years, Bennett perceives himself as a winner: “I’ve made a lot of money and I’ve won a lot of money....Over 10 years, I’d say I’ve come out pretty close to even....You may cycle several hundred thousand dollars in an evening and net out only a few thousand.”
And there is nothing wrong with sitting in front of a slot machine between midnight and 6am 'cycling' several hundred thousand dollars? Says Bennett: “I play fairly high stakes. I adhere to the law. I don’t play the ‘milk money.’ I don’t put my family at risk, and I don’t owe anyone anything.” In other words, he's falling back on the same "it gives me pleasure and it's not hurting anyone else" arguements that he has so scathingly condemned in other people and for other vices.
Well, I have good news for you, Mr. Bennett. Outrage is not dead. I do not care that you gamble. I am, however, outraged at your hypocrisy. You devote your days to criticizing people for actions you deem immoral. You have devoted your career to shaping public policy to penalize those who don't conform to your biases. Nevertheless, you choose to spend your nights wallowing in what many thoughtful people consider and many academic studies show to be a socially harmful activity.
I also consider your waste of money to be shameful. It doesn't matter that you are wealthy enough that your vice does not threaten the "milk money," as you put it. It does not matter that you give some of your occasional winnings to charity, as you claim. It happens to be possible to gamble for several hours without cycling through hundreds of thousands of dollars. Perhaps you aren't aware that there are slot machines you can play for less than five hundred dollars a pull. With this nonchalant and unnecessarily profligate gambling away of millions of dollars, you demonstrate an arrogant and willful disdain toward the financial situation of the overwhelming majority of people on the planet. This further destroys your credibility as moral spokesman.
I think Bill Bennett's income needs to be subject to a 90% tax bracket. He clearly has too much money, and it might as well be put to better use.
No, make that a BIG gambling problem, with losses estimated by casinos at over eight million dollars over the past decade. Last July 12, he dropped $340,000 at Caesars in Atlantic City, and just a month ago gave up half a million bucks at the Bellagio in Las Vegas. Over one two month stretch, he wired a casino 1.4 million dollars to cover his losses. The play this high-minded public intellectual evidently favors is the most mindless sort of gambling: $500 a pull slot machines and video poker machines.
Although he has built his career on castigating people for giving into their weaknesses and society for coddling them, Bennett sees no problem with his gambling. When asked about it, he spouts responses that are astounding for either their hypocrisy or their self-delusion: “I’ve gambled all my life, and it’s never been a moral issue with me. I liked church bingo when I was growing up....I view it as drinking; if you can’t handle it, don’t do it."
Though casino records show his substantial losses over the years, Bennett perceives himself as a winner: “I’ve made a lot of money and I’ve won a lot of money....Over 10 years, I’d say I’ve come out pretty close to even....You may cycle several hundred thousand dollars in an evening and net out only a few thousand.”
And there is nothing wrong with sitting in front of a slot machine between midnight and 6am 'cycling' several hundred thousand dollars? Says Bennett: “I play fairly high stakes. I adhere to the law. I don’t play the ‘milk money.’ I don’t put my family at risk, and I don’t owe anyone anything.” In other words, he's falling back on the same "it gives me pleasure and it's not hurting anyone else" arguements that he has so scathingly condemned in other people and for other vices.
Well, I have good news for you, Mr. Bennett. Outrage is not dead. I do not care that you gamble. I am, however, outraged at your hypocrisy. You devote your days to criticizing people for actions you deem immoral. You have devoted your career to shaping public policy to penalize those who don't conform to your biases. Nevertheless, you choose to spend your nights wallowing in what many thoughtful people consider and many academic studies show to be a socially harmful activity.
I also consider your waste of money to be shameful. It doesn't matter that you are wealthy enough that your vice does not threaten the "milk money," as you put it. It does not matter that you give some of your occasional winnings to charity, as you claim. It happens to be possible to gamble for several hours without cycling through hundreds of thousands of dollars. Perhaps you aren't aware that there are slot machines you can play for less than five hundred dollars a pull. With this nonchalant and unnecessarily profligate gambling away of millions of dollars, you demonstrate an arrogant and willful disdain toward the financial situation of the overwhelming majority of people on the planet. This further destroys your credibility as moral spokesman.
I think Bill Bennett's income needs to be subject to a 90% tax bracket. He clearly has too much money, and it might as well be put to better use.
Saturday, May 03, 2003
King Size M&Ms, or I Can't Believe How Rich I Am
Sometimes I pop into a store and buy a King Size bag of Peanut M&Ms. Calling a little 3.27 ounce handful of candy that fits in the palm of your hand "King Size" seems an insult to royalty everywhere, and I'm really surprised some monarch hasn't declared war, or at least filed a slander lawsuit, against the makers of M&Ms. Perhaps the world is starting to learn to live together.
I usually buy these M&Ms when I'm feeling a little hungry, something to tide me over between lunch and dinner. Sometimes I buy them even when I'm not feeling so much hungry as anxious or angst-ridden, and just feel the need to chew something or give myself a sugar rush. I scarf the little brightly colored spheres down half-consciously, and they usually are gone within a few minutes.
We all do this on occasion. Millions of these little snacks are consumed every day, tiny financial and caloric transactions that are barely a blip on our budgets or our diets. Sometimes, however, I think it's important to put these snacks into a broader context.
I customarily spend 99 cents on my bag of Peanut M&Ms. Around the world, there are an estimated 1.3 billion people who struggle to live on earnings of one dollar or less per day.
That bag of Peanut M&Ms that I treat as a little snack has 480 calories. That represents approximately one quarter of the minimum daily recommended caloric intake for an active adult. Yet there are billions of people around the world who suffer from malnutrition, who can't get 2000 calories worth of food per day. For the most serious cases of starvation, even that 480 calories is but a dream.
In other words, what to me is a little between-meal snack, purchased with pocket change and consumed almost without thinking, represents every bit of money and every bit of food that well over a billion people around the world have to live on. Yes, I may be struggling with a credit card debt that now stands at $25,059.51, and within the United States my earnings are well towards the lower end of the scale, but relatively speaking within the entire spectrum of human experience, I am extraordinarily wealthy.
I usually buy these M&Ms when I'm feeling a little hungry, something to tide me over between lunch and dinner. Sometimes I buy them even when I'm not feeling so much hungry as anxious or angst-ridden, and just feel the need to chew something or give myself a sugar rush. I scarf the little brightly colored spheres down half-consciously, and they usually are gone within a few minutes.
We all do this on occasion. Millions of these little snacks are consumed every day, tiny financial and caloric transactions that are barely a blip on our budgets or our diets. Sometimes, however, I think it's important to put these snacks into a broader context.
I customarily spend 99 cents on my bag of Peanut M&Ms. Around the world, there are an estimated 1.3 billion people who struggle to live on earnings of one dollar or less per day.
That bag of Peanut M&Ms that I treat as a little snack has 480 calories. That represents approximately one quarter of the minimum daily recommended caloric intake for an active adult. Yet there are billions of people around the world who suffer from malnutrition, who can't get 2000 calories worth of food per day. For the most serious cases of starvation, even that 480 calories is but a dream.
In other words, what to me is a little between-meal snack, purchased with pocket change and consumed almost without thinking, represents every bit of money and every bit of food that well over a billion people around the world have to live on. Yes, I may be struggling with a credit card debt that now stands at $25,059.51, and within the United States my earnings are well towards the lower end of the scale, but relatively speaking within the entire spectrum of human experience, I am extraordinarily wealthy.
Monday, April 28, 2003
More on Taxes
In my previous entry I said that despite the fact that we had to add $3000 to our enormous credit card bill to pay the taxes on April 15, I opposed the Bush tax cuts. In fact, I said I'd be happy to pay more taxes, if only we had a government that believed in the social contract and believed it had a role to play in bettering society.
But no. Bush wants to slash taxes, with most of the money going to the wealthy...pandering to the greed of the rich. He compounds this shameful rewarding of greed by seeking support among average voters with appeals to their selfishness, populist pablum about how the money would be better off in your pocket than in the government's. Finally, the ultimate goal of his manipulative use of greed and selfishness is slothfulness on the part of the government. Bush only wants enough of your tax dollars to wage wars around the world, but he wants the government to have less responsibility for the things we need here at home, all those things help us work together as a society in order to create the best possible lives for ourselves. To me, it all adds up to a very short-sighted policy.
Greed, selfishness, sloth and short-sightedness...that's our government under Bush.
They try and hide the fact that their tax policy is based primarily on the greedy rewarding of the already well off by citing 'supply-side economics.' This is the same free lunch idea tried under Reagan, claiming that a cut in taxes will spur so much economic activity that government will take in even more in taxes. It didn't work then...deficits soared under Reagan...and it won't work now.
Of course, the supply-siders claim the problem back then was that the tax cuts weren't big enough. Economists who still support supply-side also claim they now have better ways of predicting the benefits through the use of something called 'dynamic scoring.' Republican Congressional leaders tapped an ardent supporter of dynamic scoring to head the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office, gleefully expecting his budget analysis would strongly support tax cuts.
Oops. No such luck. Of the various scenarios crunched by the Congressional Budget Office, some forecast a slight reduction in the budget deficit, some saw the budget get larger, and not one of the scenarios predicted that Bush's tax cut would pay for itself over the next ten years.
But here's the wackiest part. According to the Wall Street Journal, of the two scenarios that forecast lower budget deficits, "both those models got their results by assuming that after 2013, taxes would be raised to eliminate the remaining deficit. The theory is that people will work harder between 2004 and 2013 because they know their taxes will be going up, and will want to earn more money before those tax increases take effect."
Let's look at that again. This is how economists think your brain works: They think you are going to sit down in 2004 and think 'damn it, I bet the government is gonna raise my taxes nine years from now, so i'll fool them. I'm gonna work real hard and make a lot of money between now and 2013, and when that damn tax increase goes into effect, I'll quit my high-paying job and switch to some low tax bracket job like maybe flipping burgers for McDonalds. Ha Ha, I'll be damned if the IRS is gonna take my money."
Yes, the whole supply-side arguement is a farce, but even worse than that, it is a smokescreen for the true intentions of the conservative Republicans currently in charge. It doesn't matter to them whether or not their tax cuts ultimately bring more revenue to the government, because they don't really want more revenue. They don't believe in government.
I find it frightening that Bush and his cronies in government are so willing to sacrifice the economy, the quality of life in our country and the prospects of future generations to feed their own narrow, selfish and greedy financial and ideological interests. And it's not only left-leaning types like me who are saying this. Stephen Roach is chief economist for the brokerage firm Morgan Stanley, and he calls Bush's tax cuts " a policy blunder of monumental proportions...[which]...could well be the tipping point that finally brings this house of cards tumbling down." (Click here to read his article)
You know you don't want to accept this. You know you don't want the government to get away with thinking you are this stupid and this selfish. Speak out against the Bush tax cuts.
But no. Bush wants to slash taxes, with most of the money going to the wealthy...pandering to the greed of the rich. He compounds this shameful rewarding of greed by seeking support among average voters with appeals to their selfishness, populist pablum about how the money would be better off in your pocket than in the government's. Finally, the ultimate goal of his manipulative use of greed and selfishness is slothfulness on the part of the government. Bush only wants enough of your tax dollars to wage wars around the world, but he wants the government to have less responsibility for the things we need here at home, all those things help us work together as a society in order to create the best possible lives for ourselves. To me, it all adds up to a very short-sighted policy.
Greed, selfishness, sloth and short-sightedness...that's our government under Bush.
They try and hide the fact that their tax policy is based primarily on the greedy rewarding of the already well off by citing 'supply-side economics.' This is the same free lunch idea tried under Reagan, claiming that a cut in taxes will spur so much economic activity that government will take in even more in taxes. It didn't work then...deficits soared under Reagan...and it won't work now.
Of course, the supply-siders claim the problem back then was that the tax cuts weren't big enough. Economists who still support supply-side also claim they now have better ways of predicting the benefits through the use of something called 'dynamic scoring.' Republican Congressional leaders tapped an ardent supporter of dynamic scoring to head the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office, gleefully expecting his budget analysis would strongly support tax cuts.
Oops. No such luck. Of the various scenarios crunched by the Congressional Budget Office, some forecast a slight reduction in the budget deficit, some saw the budget get larger, and not one of the scenarios predicted that Bush's tax cut would pay for itself over the next ten years.
But here's the wackiest part. According to the Wall Street Journal, of the two scenarios that forecast lower budget deficits, "both those models got their results by assuming that after 2013, taxes would be raised to eliminate the remaining deficit. The theory is that people will work harder between 2004 and 2013 because they know their taxes will be going up, and will want to earn more money before those tax increases take effect."
Let's look at that again. This is how economists think your brain works: They think you are going to sit down in 2004 and think 'damn it, I bet the government is gonna raise my taxes nine years from now, so i'll fool them. I'm gonna work real hard and make a lot of money between now and 2013, and when that damn tax increase goes into effect, I'll quit my high-paying job and switch to some low tax bracket job like maybe flipping burgers for McDonalds. Ha Ha, I'll be damned if the IRS is gonna take my money."
Yes, the whole supply-side arguement is a farce, but even worse than that, it is a smokescreen for the true intentions of the conservative Republicans currently in charge. It doesn't matter to them whether or not their tax cuts ultimately bring more revenue to the government, because they don't really want more revenue. They don't believe in government.
I find it frightening that Bush and his cronies in government are so willing to sacrifice the economy, the quality of life in our country and the prospects of future generations to feed their own narrow, selfish and greedy financial and ideological interests. And it's not only left-leaning types like me who are saying this. Stephen Roach is chief economist for the brokerage firm Morgan Stanley, and he calls Bush's tax cuts " a policy blunder of monumental proportions...[which]...could well be the tipping point that finally brings this house of cards tumbling down." (Click here to read his article)
You know you don't want to accept this. You know you don't want the government to get away with thinking you are this stupid and this selfish. Speak out against the Bush tax cuts.
Thursday, April 24, 2003
Debts and Taxes
Our credit card debt just increased by nearly $3000. We now owe $25,209.96. Yikes.
We have our tax bill on April 15 to thank for this. Taxes can be a bit of a struggle for us, since my wife’s income comes from several self-employment ventures. You might gripe about the taxes deducted from your paycheck every week, but having to set aside the tax money yourself is no fun either. Also, many people don’t realize that the social security taxes deducted from a paycheck at an ordinary job represent only half of the taxes actually owed; the other half is paid by your employer. The self-employed person, on the other hand, has to pay the full 15% themselves.
Add it all together, and we really should be setting aside over 30% of what my wife earns to cover the taxes, but that is tough to do when you have a giant credit card debt monster to feed every month. Still, we did pretty well, saving about half of what we needed.
For the remaining three thousand dollars, we had to turn to the magic plastic. Fortunately, the credit card companies remain diligent in filling our mailbox with attractive low-interest deals. I borrowed the entire amount at a 5.99% interest rate that will last as long as the money is owed. Nevertheless, this adds another fifty dollars or so to our monthly minimum payment, squeezing us financially a bit more and making it ever harder to pay off the debt.
You might think that our tax woes would make me a strong supporter of George W. Bush’s $727 billion dollar tax cut, but you would be very wrong. I am vehemently opposed to it. Hell, I’d support a tax increase if we had a government that actually believed that government had a role in promoting a better society.
Unfortunately, we now have in power a government that doesn’t believe in governing. Its highest value is private property, minimally taxed and minimally regulated. It believes that society prospers best when it is ‘every person for themselves’, acting in their own interests and shouldering their own burdens. It believes that economic markets are self-regulating and will produce the greatest social good when government butts out.
I suppose this is a valid political theory, but it is not one I believe in. I especially do not agree with it as promoted by the current government in Washington. Bush and his crowd love policies that benefit what an article in The Nation refers to as the “haves and have mores.” Their philosophy seems to be to allow those with the most property—the wealthy and big business—do whatever they want and to hell with everyone else. A rising tide lifts all boats, they say. Unfortunately, most of us don't have boats, so we're left to tread water or drown.
What this has given us are corporate scandals and mismanagement, CEO pay that is absurdly out of proportion with both the results they produce and the pay of the people who work under them, and a gap between rich and poor that is the worst of the industrialized nations and growing worse. It has given us an under-protected environment, under-financed schools and libraries, and an under-maintained public infrastructure.
I do happen to believe in private property and in market economies, but I also believe in the social contract. Societies form governments because they recognize that there are some things too big, too important and too complicated to be left to the unruly jostling of individual effort and market forces. We form governments because we recognize that although life will always be unfair, with a little collective effort we can help smooth out some of the rough edges and make things better for everyone. We form governments because we understand that our quality of life has as much to do with our interdependence as a society as with our independence as individuals.
Bush wants to let me keep more of my tax money in exchange for letting his government concentrate on waging wars around the world rather than creating a better society at home. He wants to give me a couple of hundred bucks more a year in exchange for letting the rich pocket millions and for allowing corporations to have fewer regulations get in their way.
I don’t consider that he’s doing me any favors. I consider that his tax cuts cost me plenty. I consider the $1395.68 deducted each year from my paycheck for health insurance to be a tax, because our government is one of the few industrialized nations that won’t provide health care to its citizens. I consider the $1.60 I pay for a bus ride in my city to be a tax because our government prefers to slash mass transit funding. I consider much of the money I spent for college to have been a tax, since our government provides less subsidies for higher education than do many less wealthy nations.
We all pay hidden taxes every day thanks to the government’s withdrawal from the social contract. You pay more in tuition, more in insurance, more in healthcare. And don't forget the little things: that car repair after hitting a pothole costs you a hell of a lot more individually than the few cents per person in taxes it would cost to have public highway maintenance properly funded.
Well, if Bush cuts my taxes, I’ll take the money. And then I’ll tax it myself, continuing to donate to the Sierra Club, the ACLU, Amnesty International and other groups who oppose his policies. And I’ll donate some of it to political candidates who aren’t afraid to say that they will raise my taxes in order to promote the public good.
Damn. I’m $25,000 in debt, and I’m less greedy for tax cuts than people who have millions. What’s wrong with this picture?
We have our tax bill on April 15 to thank for this. Taxes can be a bit of a struggle for us, since my wife’s income comes from several self-employment ventures. You might gripe about the taxes deducted from your paycheck every week, but having to set aside the tax money yourself is no fun either. Also, many people don’t realize that the social security taxes deducted from a paycheck at an ordinary job represent only half of the taxes actually owed; the other half is paid by your employer. The self-employed person, on the other hand, has to pay the full 15% themselves.
Add it all together, and we really should be setting aside over 30% of what my wife earns to cover the taxes, but that is tough to do when you have a giant credit card debt monster to feed every month. Still, we did pretty well, saving about half of what we needed.
For the remaining three thousand dollars, we had to turn to the magic plastic. Fortunately, the credit card companies remain diligent in filling our mailbox with attractive low-interest deals. I borrowed the entire amount at a 5.99% interest rate that will last as long as the money is owed. Nevertheless, this adds another fifty dollars or so to our monthly minimum payment, squeezing us financially a bit more and making it ever harder to pay off the debt.
You might think that our tax woes would make me a strong supporter of George W. Bush’s $727 billion dollar tax cut, but you would be very wrong. I am vehemently opposed to it. Hell, I’d support a tax increase if we had a government that actually believed that government had a role in promoting a better society.
Unfortunately, we now have in power a government that doesn’t believe in governing. Its highest value is private property, minimally taxed and minimally regulated. It believes that society prospers best when it is ‘every person for themselves’, acting in their own interests and shouldering their own burdens. It believes that economic markets are self-regulating and will produce the greatest social good when government butts out.
I suppose this is a valid political theory, but it is not one I believe in. I especially do not agree with it as promoted by the current government in Washington. Bush and his crowd love policies that benefit what an article in The Nation refers to as the “haves and have mores.” Their philosophy seems to be to allow those with the most property—the wealthy and big business—do whatever they want and to hell with everyone else. A rising tide lifts all boats, they say. Unfortunately, most of us don't have boats, so we're left to tread water or drown.
What this has given us are corporate scandals and mismanagement, CEO pay that is absurdly out of proportion with both the results they produce and the pay of the people who work under them, and a gap between rich and poor that is the worst of the industrialized nations and growing worse. It has given us an under-protected environment, under-financed schools and libraries, and an under-maintained public infrastructure.
I do happen to believe in private property and in market economies, but I also believe in the social contract. Societies form governments because they recognize that there are some things too big, too important and too complicated to be left to the unruly jostling of individual effort and market forces. We form governments because we recognize that although life will always be unfair, with a little collective effort we can help smooth out some of the rough edges and make things better for everyone. We form governments because we understand that our quality of life has as much to do with our interdependence as a society as with our independence as individuals.
Bush wants to let me keep more of my tax money in exchange for letting his government concentrate on waging wars around the world rather than creating a better society at home. He wants to give me a couple of hundred bucks more a year in exchange for letting the rich pocket millions and for allowing corporations to have fewer regulations get in their way.
I don’t consider that he’s doing me any favors. I consider that his tax cuts cost me plenty. I consider the $1395.68 deducted each year from my paycheck for health insurance to be a tax, because our government is one of the few industrialized nations that won’t provide health care to its citizens. I consider the $1.60 I pay for a bus ride in my city to be a tax because our government prefers to slash mass transit funding. I consider much of the money I spent for college to have been a tax, since our government provides less subsidies for higher education than do many less wealthy nations.
We all pay hidden taxes every day thanks to the government’s withdrawal from the social contract. You pay more in tuition, more in insurance, more in healthcare. And don't forget the little things: that car repair after hitting a pothole costs you a hell of a lot more individually than the few cents per person in taxes it would cost to have public highway maintenance properly funded.
Well, if Bush cuts my taxes, I’ll take the money. And then I’ll tax it myself, continuing to donate to the Sierra Club, the ACLU, Amnesty International and other groups who oppose his policies. And I’ll donate some of it to political candidates who aren’t afraid to say that they will raise my taxes in order to promote the public good.
Damn. I’m $25,000 in debt, and I’m less greedy for tax cuts than people who have millions. What’s wrong with this picture?
Thursday, April 10, 2003
Although I am a strong proponent of organic and natural foods, as you can see from my previous post, that doesn't mean anything labeled 'natural' is automatically righteous in my book. Take, for example, the Jones Soda Company, maker of Jones Natural Sodas. Their products tend to be the most ghastly unnatural colors you will ever see, and most are overly sweet for my taste. The only plus I find about them is they come in large, thirst-quenching 20-ounce sizes, if you can bear to drink it all down. (Yes, I know I sound like an idiot: it tastes terrible, but at least the portions are big). They come with cutesy names like Bada Bing! cherry and D'Peach Mode. Their web site strives to create a sense of hip community, but seems to me more of a messy embarrassment.
But I could even forgive all that if it weren't for the outright dishonesty they show on their labels. If you look at the nutrition facts (an example from D'Peach Mode can be seen HERE), you will see that when it comes to the things people generally want to cut down on, like calories and sugar, a bottle is listed as having 2.5 servings. However, when it comes to the vitamin and mineral supplements added to the soda, the things people will want, a bottle suddenly becomes a single serving.
You can't have it both ways, Jones. Either a serving is one bottle, with a whopping 270 calories and 72 grams of sugar, or there are 2.5 servings per bottle, with each serving offering minimal amounts of Vitamins C and B6, Calcium and Manganese. A big raspberry to the Jones Soda Company, and a lesson learned: read the labels and don't be fooled.
But I could even forgive all that if it weren't for the outright dishonesty they show on their labels. If you look at the nutrition facts (an example from D'Peach Mode can be seen HERE), you will see that when it comes to the things people generally want to cut down on, like calories and sugar, a bottle is listed as having 2.5 servings. However, when it comes to the vitamin and mineral supplements added to the soda, the things people will want, a bottle suddenly becomes a single serving.
You can't have it both ways, Jones. Either a serving is one bottle, with a whopping 270 calories and 72 grams of sugar, or there are 2.5 servings per bottle, with each serving offering minimal amounts of Vitamins C and B6, Calcium and Manganese. A big raspberry to the Jones Soda Company, and a lesson learned: read the labels and don't be fooled.
Cents Off Equals No Sense
My local newspaper last Sunday trumpeted on its front page that within I would find over $490.00 worth of money-saving coupons. You'd think that would be welcome news to someone with a $22,229.68 credit card debt, but alas, practically none of the coupons are for anything I use. In fact, most of the coupons were for stuff I don't know why anyone would use. Slimfast milkshakes, microwaveable Ragu pasta snacks, pull-top fruit and gelatin cups, Vanilla Indulgence plug-in air fresheners, Froot Loop cereal-and-milk bars, Kelloggs new Fruit Harvest cereal, with dried old bits of chemically preserved fruit. Ugh! Mystery Jello--"Starts yellow, turns red and tastes like a mystery flavor!" Actually, that describes a lot of the products available on the typical supermarket shelf: something that starts out one color, is chemically processed to another hue, and has a mystery taste.
Even with the money-saving coupons, we still pay inflated prices for a lot of these so-called foods. You think you're getting a deal on that Kraft "It's Pasta Anytime" never-frozen, microwaveable-in-three-minutes snack? There's a 55-cents off coupon for it, and even if your supermarket doubles the coupon, you still are paying way more than it's worth. A few cents worth of pasta and over-processed tomato sauce enclosed in packaging bulkier than the food itself. Convenience is the one legitimate selling point: quick, easy, portable. But that so-called convenience seems to come at a terribly high cost: inflated prices, mediocre flavor, mealy texture, excessive amounts of salt and sugar, a long list of artificial flavors and chemical preservatives, and the shame of cluttering the environment with so much trash packaging for so little food? Aren't you tired of paying higher prices for bad, unhealthy food, tired of being hoodwinked by the advertisers and their multi-million dollar budgets?
Funny thing is, despite my large debt, I also choose to pay more than necessary for food. I do not pay extra for this absurd 'convenience' that wreaks havoc on both our health and the environment. I do not pay extra because some multi-national corporation spent millions of dollars to show it on television. I do not pay extra because some paid Tiger Woods a million bucks to say he uses it.
What I do pay extra for is to buy organic, preservative- and additive-free food as often as I can (which is most of the time, thanks to a Whole Foods supermarket that opened eight blocks away last year). I may not always get as much 'convenience' for the extra cost, but I do get the pleasure of knowing I am consuming fewer chemicals, artificial flavors and colors, pesticides, chicken antibiotics, beef growth hormones and hydrogenated oils. I get the pleasure of knowing I am helping to support a type of farming that protects topsoil and thus helps preserve our farmland for future generations. I get the pleasure of knowing that I am helping to limit the amount of chemical fertilizers and pesticides that seep into the land and run off into our rivers. I get the pleasure of knowing that fewer farm workers are exposed to toxic pesticides in the course of their labor. I get the pleasure of knowing I am supporting diversity of crops rather than giant agrobusiness farming that concentrates on a few crops genetically modified to be able to travel far and sit long on the shelf even if they lose flavor in the process. And yes, I find that I generally have the pleasure of having food that tastes better. Not only that, but a lot of the food is very quick and convenient as well.
It might be a bit too much to ask to go back to buying raw foods and making everything from scratch. But we do have choices. You can pay a little extra for your food and have your money help make a few corporate CEOs and celebrity spokespersons rich while destroying your health and the planet's environment. Or you can pay a little extra and feel like your doing something good for yourself, for society and for the future.
And please don't forget to contact your Congressional representatives in support of preserving federal organic food standards. Read more about it HERE.
Even with the money-saving coupons, we still pay inflated prices for a lot of these so-called foods. You think you're getting a deal on that Kraft "It's Pasta Anytime" never-frozen, microwaveable-in-three-minutes snack? There's a 55-cents off coupon for it, and even if your supermarket doubles the coupon, you still are paying way more than it's worth. A few cents worth of pasta and over-processed tomato sauce enclosed in packaging bulkier than the food itself. Convenience is the one legitimate selling point: quick, easy, portable. But that so-called convenience seems to come at a terribly high cost: inflated prices, mediocre flavor, mealy texture, excessive amounts of salt and sugar, a long list of artificial flavors and chemical preservatives, and the shame of cluttering the environment with so much trash packaging for so little food? Aren't you tired of paying higher prices for bad, unhealthy food, tired of being hoodwinked by the advertisers and their multi-million dollar budgets?
Funny thing is, despite my large debt, I also choose to pay more than necessary for food. I do not pay extra for this absurd 'convenience' that wreaks havoc on both our health and the environment. I do not pay extra because some multi-national corporation spent millions of dollars to show it on television. I do not pay extra because some paid Tiger Woods a million bucks to say he uses it.
What I do pay extra for is to buy organic, preservative- and additive-free food as often as I can (which is most of the time, thanks to a Whole Foods supermarket that opened eight blocks away last year). I may not always get as much 'convenience' for the extra cost, but I do get the pleasure of knowing I am consuming fewer chemicals, artificial flavors and colors, pesticides, chicken antibiotics, beef growth hormones and hydrogenated oils. I get the pleasure of knowing I am helping to support a type of farming that protects topsoil and thus helps preserve our farmland for future generations. I get the pleasure of knowing that I am helping to limit the amount of chemical fertilizers and pesticides that seep into the land and run off into our rivers. I get the pleasure of knowing that fewer farm workers are exposed to toxic pesticides in the course of their labor. I get the pleasure of knowing I am supporting diversity of crops rather than giant agrobusiness farming that concentrates on a few crops genetically modified to be able to travel far and sit long on the shelf even if they lose flavor in the process. And yes, I find that I generally have the pleasure of having food that tastes better. Not only that, but a lot of the food is very quick and convenient as well.
It might be a bit too much to ask to go back to buying raw foods and making everything from scratch. But we do have choices. You can pay a little extra for your food and have your money help make a few corporate CEOs and celebrity spokespersons rich while destroying your health and the planet's environment. Or you can pay a little extra and feel like your doing something good for yourself, for society and for the future.
And please don't forget to contact your Congressional representatives in support of preserving federal organic food standards. Read more about it HERE.
Saturday, April 05, 2003
The Debt Creeps Down
Time for an update on the state of the debt.
With recent interest charges added in and payments made, our credit card debt now stands at $22,229.68, nearly $1000 dollars below what it was when I started this blog on February 11, 2003. But danger approaches: it looks like we're going to owe a couple thousand dollars in income tax with nowhere to turn for the money but credit cards. It seems absurd to owe so much given our relatively low income, but there it is. Most of the tax debt is due to the fact that my wife's income comes from self-employment, meaning we have to set aside between 25% and 30% of her earnings to cover income and social security taxes. Tough to do, and though we managed to set aside more than half of the necessary tax money over the past year, in the end we fell short.
If we do have to borrow, I've got plenty of options for getting the money from a credit card at 6% or less interest, but still...it means the debt goes up, the monthly minimum payment goes up, and the end seems further away than ever. The struggle continues to tame the beast, to get the debt down without life coming along and knocking it back up.
With recent interest charges added in and payments made, our credit card debt now stands at $22,229.68, nearly $1000 dollars below what it was when I started this blog on February 11, 2003. But danger approaches: it looks like we're going to owe a couple thousand dollars in income tax with nowhere to turn for the money but credit cards. It seems absurd to owe so much given our relatively low income, but there it is. Most of the tax debt is due to the fact that my wife's income comes from self-employment, meaning we have to set aside between 25% and 30% of her earnings to cover income and social security taxes. Tough to do, and though we managed to set aside more than half of the necessary tax money over the past year, in the end we fell short.
If we do have to borrow, I've got plenty of options for getting the money from a credit card at 6% or less interest, but still...it means the debt goes up, the monthly minimum payment goes up, and the end seems further away than ever. The struggle continues to tame the beast, to get the debt down without life coming along and knocking it back up.
Thursday, April 03, 2003
New Post at Last
It's been a couple weeks since my last post. Just been busy, tired, and mentally beaten down by this idiotic war our leaders have undertaken. But I'm ba-a-a-ck, and have a huge backlog of things that have been rolling around in my mind, so watch out.
Yes, I've felt a bit gloomy as I ponder living in this United States whose ignorant, arrogant leaders I feel are wreaking destruction on international relations, the economy, the environment, civil liberties, human rights and on uncountable individual lives around the globe, but I'm dealing with it. According to the Wall Street Journal, Americans in general are dealing well with it. On March 27, they published an article headlined "Americans Seen Withstanding War's Psychological Challenges." It is truly inspiring to know that these challenges of living in wartime cannot defeat the American spirit. After all, how many of our favorite television sitcoms have been pre-empted by this endless war coverage? Aren't those sandstorm oranges and night-vision goggle greens really unappealing colors? Aren't those videophone reports from the 'embedded' reporters annoyingly jerky?
In spite of these hardships, requests for sleeping pills have remained normal, and have only risen somewhat for anti-depressants. Oh, there are a few signs of stress. Another Wall Street Journal article today warns: "America's Wartime Diet: Finding Comfort in Cupcakes; Calorie Intakes are Surging as Nation Hunkers Down." Yes, restaurants, caterers, personal chefs and groceries around the country are reporting an unusually high demand for high calorie, high fat and high sugar comfort foods. An upscale bistro in Philadelphia reported it sold 560 hamburgers the first week of the war, nearly twice the usual amount. That $29 sirloin and foie gras hamburger at DB Bistro Moderne in New York City accounts for 40% of the restaurant's sales some days.
People around the country report sitting in front of the TV watching news coverage while eating pizzas, caramel corn and Peruvian Blue gourmet potato chips. Noses are turned up at baked chicken or seared ahi-ahi in favor of gooey, fatty, mind-numbing and body-expanding concoctions of comfort. This is a little worrisome in a country where 30% of the adult population is medically defined as obese, especially with swimsuit season fast approaching, but I'm sure we'll deal with that hardship with equal courage.
The fact that we Americans have to endure these wartime deprivations should help us to feel empathy towards those Iraqis who have to suffer their own forms of trouble. Their worries aren't the same as ours, of course. Their wartime jitters come more from things like wondering if one of the bombs dropping night and day will fall on them, having to hunker down in concrete bunkers, worrying about lack of food, lack of water, lack of money, lack of healthcare, outbreaks of disease, but at bottom, isn't it all the same? Don't we both have to bear our own particular burdens of living in wartime? I hope American's fortitude can be an inspiration to the Iraqis. Perhaps they might also like to try a few of the Wall Street Journal's suggestions for coping, such as ordering a $20 apple strudel from Comfortfoodonline.com.
Yes, I've felt a bit gloomy as I ponder living in this United States whose ignorant, arrogant leaders I feel are wreaking destruction on international relations, the economy, the environment, civil liberties, human rights and on uncountable individual lives around the globe, but I'm dealing with it. According to the Wall Street Journal, Americans in general are dealing well with it. On March 27, they published an article headlined "Americans Seen Withstanding War's Psychological Challenges." It is truly inspiring to know that these challenges of living in wartime cannot defeat the American spirit. After all, how many of our favorite television sitcoms have been pre-empted by this endless war coverage? Aren't those sandstorm oranges and night-vision goggle greens really unappealing colors? Aren't those videophone reports from the 'embedded' reporters annoyingly jerky?
In spite of these hardships, requests for sleeping pills have remained normal, and have only risen somewhat for anti-depressants. Oh, there are a few signs of stress. Another Wall Street Journal article today warns: "America's Wartime Diet: Finding Comfort in Cupcakes; Calorie Intakes are Surging as Nation Hunkers Down." Yes, restaurants, caterers, personal chefs and groceries around the country are reporting an unusually high demand for high calorie, high fat and high sugar comfort foods. An upscale bistro in Philadelphia reported it sold 560 hamburgers the first week of the war, nearly twice the usual amount. That $29 sirloin and foie gras hamburger at DB Bistro Moderne in New York City accounts for 40% of the restaurant's sales some days.
People around the country report sitting in front of the TV watching news coverage while eating pizzas, caramel corn and Peruvian Blue gourmet potato chips. Noses are turned up at baked chicken or seared ahi-ahi in favor of gooey, fatty, mind-numbing and body-expanding concoctions of comfort. This is a little worrisome in a country where 30% of the adult population is medically defined as obese, especially with swimsuit season fast approaching, but I'm sure we'll deal with that hardship with equal courage.
The fact that we Americans have to endure these wartime deprivations should help us to feel empathy towards those Iraqis who have to suffer their own forms of trouble. Their worries aren't the same as ours, of course. Their wartime jitters come more from things like wondering if one of the bombs dropping night and day will fall on them, having to hunker down in concrete bunkers, worrying about lack of food, lack of water, lack of money, lack of healthcare, outbreaks of disease, but at bottom, isn't it all the same? Don't we both have to bear our own particular burdens of living in wartime? I hope American's fortitude can be an inspiration to the Iraqis. Perhaps they might also like to try a few of the Wall Street Journal's suggestions for coping, such as ordering a $20 apple strudel from Comfortfoodonline.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)