Sarah Palin kicked off her ludicrous, disingenuous book tour taking pot shots at President Obama's economic recovery plan "Backassward." And what is her suggestion for economic recovery?
Palin says "cutting taxes and allowing our small businesses to keep more of what they're earning."
Talk about "Backasswards." Apparently Pagliacci Palin hopes ALL OF US FORGET that cities, towns, and states nationwide are already broke, and cutting services and job with chainsaws to stay barely solvent. They're closing fire houses, assistance programs, police patrols, and training.
We're in the BIGGEST RECESSION since the 1930's, after 8 years of Disgraced President Bush "cutting taxes and allowing our small businesses to keep more of what they're earning." Perhaps Pagliacci Palin needs a new punchline.
Showing posts with label Economy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Economy. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Whither Goest Thou, Oh Globe?
Stories are flooding in from all over about the NYT's threat to close the Boston Globe if the paper's 13 unions don't agree to shave $20M from the operating budget. This, even despite years of cutbacks, staff cuts, and layout tweaks.
All of my life, my family has had a subscription to the Globe. And when I was a budding journalist, back when "reporting" meant the person nearest the opening of the cave grunted when the rain stopped, I aspired to working for the paper that, at the time, was the 3rd most important paper in the country.
And now it's at a crisis. The Globe has grown into a hugely respected and needed newspaper. Without the Globe's hard-hitting, in-depth, and well-written news, Boston will suffer a huge lack of depth in what many of us in the area still refer to as "The Hub." The Globe is an integral part of many people's news and entertainment ritual. When we want to get to the truth of an issue, we turn to the Globe to report it accurately, fairly, and fully. We turn to the Globe for entertainment- such as keeping track of what cultural events are happening around our fair city and state, and which movies are playing where, and whether we should see them.
I've had arguments with friends in the past, who actually said out loud that they preferred the Herald due to the shape/layout of the paper. Slightly less important to them, apparently, is the quality of reporting, or accuracy. Not for me. If the Globe says something, I know I can rely on it. I'd hate to lose something I've trusted for so many years.
So what are the options? Some of the ideas floated are, naturally, staff cuts and elimination of the seniority system, the end of lifetime employment guarantees, cuts in pay and benefits. But I'd like to propose some others as well.
The idea has already been mentioned by pundits nation wide, but the Globe should consider moving more of its content online... and charging a small fee for access. Yes, I know its a little risky, but the fact is people are already moving to on-line news sources- that's why the Globe's circulation is down- and if the Globe can offer some unique, as well as high-quality content, people will pay for it.
Consider that, nationwide, people support National Public Radio (NPR) because they can only get their quality reporting/features from NPR. This is a model that many other papers will likely have to adopt anyway- the Globe can set a new standard. And yes, I'd pay for it. (I also think they should consider raising thier subscription price- for what you get, you get a lot.)
The Globe not only has the best reporting in all the Northeast, they have they have the people in the streets to see and know what's going on before any other source. They've got the contacts, the savvy, and most important, they've got the clout. If we lose that (as a nation, mind you!) it would be a huge blow to the fourth estate. Our fourth branch of government has already been crippled by Fox News, Rupert Murdoch, and people like Rush Limbaugh. We can't allow this bastion of reporting integrity be shut down.
I hope the unions and the NYT parent company reach an accomodation, and I hope they also explore options for charging a small fee for online content. Of course, it also means there would have to be some kind of project to bring some more special (and I think older) content online. Think of all the years of microfiche that need to be digitized so we can look through ancient newspapers! But if it meant most of the organization stayed intact, it would be worth the effort.
The alternative, of course, is for us all to ahve to rely on only the tabloid, The Boston Herald, as our source if news, insight, and culture. I for one would prefer not to be forced to read a paper that's the local equivalent of Gomer Pyle. The last things Boston needs is a NASCAR track down town and a suddent infusion of gun racks. The increase in wet-t-shirt contests and "tramp stamps" might be diverting for a while... but I'd still like to know what's happening at the ICA.
All of my life, my family has had a subscription to the Globe. And when I was a budding journalist, back when "reporting" meant the person nearest the opening of the cave grunted when the rain stopped, I aspired to working for the paper that, at the time, was the 3rd most important paper in the country.
And now it's at a crisis. The Globe has grown into a hugely respected and needed newspaper. Without the Globe's hard-hitting, in-depth, and well-written news, Boston will suffer a huge lack of depth in what many of us in the area still refer to as "The Hub." The Globe is an integral part of many people's news and entertainment ritual. When we want to get to the truth of an issue, we turn to the Globe to report it accurately, fairly, and fully. We turn to the Globe for entertainment- such as keeping track of what cultural events are happening around our fair city and state, and which movies are playing where, and whether we should see them.
I've had arguments with friends in the past, who actually said out loud that they preferred the Herald due to the shape/layout of the paper. Slightly less important to them, apparently, is the quality of reporting, or accuracy. Not for me. If the Globe says something, I know I can rely on it. I'd hate to lose something I've trusted for so many years.
So what are the options? Some of the ideas floated are, naturally, staff cuts and elimination of the seniority system, the end of lifetime employment guarantees, cuts in pay and benefits. But I'd like to propose some others as well.
The idea has already been mentioned by pundits nation wide, but the Globe should consider moving more of its content online... and charging a small fee for access. Yes, I know its a little risky, but the fact is people are already moving to on-line news sources- that's why the Globe's circulation is down- and if the Globe can offer some unique, as well as high-quality content, people will pay for it.
Consider that, nationwide, people support National Public Radio (NPR) because they can only get their quality reporting/features from NPR. This is a model that many other papers will likely have to adopt anyway- the Globe can set a new standard. And yes, I'd pay for it. (I also think they should consider raising thier subscription price- for what you get, you get a lot.)
The Globe not only has the best reporting in all the Northeast, they have they have the people in the streets to see and know what's going on before any other source. They've got the contacts, the savvy, and most important, they've got the clout. If we lose that (as a nation, mind you!) it would be a huge blow to the fourth estate. Our fourth branch of government has already been crippled by Fox News, Rupert Murdoch, and people like Rush Limbaugh. We can't allow this bastion of reporting integrity be shut down.
I hope the unions and the NYT parent company reach an accomodation, and I hope they also explore options for charging a small fee for online content. Of course, it also means there would have to be some kind of project to bring some more special (and I think older) content online. Think of all the years of microfiche that need to be digitized so we can look through ancient newspapers! But if it meant most of the organization stayed intact, it would be worth the effort.
The alternative, of course, is for us all to ahve to rely on only the tabloid, The Boston Herald, as our source if news, insight, and culture. I for one would prefer not to be forced to read a paper that's the local equivalent of Gomer Pyle. The last things Boston needs is a NASCAR track down town and a suddent infusion of gun racks. The increase in wet-t-shirt contests and "tramp stamps" might be diverting for a while... but I'd still like to know what's happening at the ICA.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Who cares what YOU say?
Not every post is going to have the kind of polish on it I'd like. Sometimes I just shoot from the hip.
Dear Everyone:
Who cares what the stock market did today? I mean, as far as whether the stock market "likes" a policy or little bit of news. Obviously, the investors care, but for the vast majority of the rest of us, the stock market not liking something is not news.
Its all bull-pucky. It always has been. Of course the stock market is going to react badly to proposed investing reform... Does the stock market not liking the reforms mean that:
Who fucking cares? The stock market goes UP when the powers that be talk about any form or deregulation, war, and cutting taxes. It goes DOWN when they talk about ANYTHING that's actually good for us. (We can debate whether cutting taxes are good in a later discussion.) Where's the news?
If we all decided, today, that from now on all cars had to use a certain fuel... should we really give a crap if NASCAR drivers complained that the fuel didn't give them the same horsepower? No. We'd tell them to shut the heck up. They can still drive their engines and make their money, we're just asking them to do it in a way not as detrimental to the rest of us. (Note to financiers: this is a blatant metaphor for your stock market!)
The market, like every other business, or more specifically, like every other CORRUPT and evil business, only cares about itself; perpetuating and enriching itself at the expense of the rest of us. So when, five times a day, I hear that "the market reacted badly to..." or "investors are uncertain about" I want to shout at the radio, or the TV, or the internet "TOUGH SHIT- its NOT NEWS!!"
Having spent my entire life at the feeding end of capitalism (a phrase readers of this blog are going to have to get used to), I can tell you that I'm pretty sure the entire concept of a stock market ought to be rethought. Or abolished. But that will be a subject for another blog.
In short, please stop thinking that the stock market's opinion of anything should in any wat influence anything at all. Its all a bunch of bullshit.
Dear Everyone:
Who cares what the stock market did today? I mean, as far as whether the stock market "likes" a policy or little bit of news. Obviously, the investors care, but for the vast majority of the rest of us, the stock market not liking something is not news.
Its all bull-pucky. It always has been. Of course the stock market is going to react badly to proposed investing reform... Does the stock market not liking the reforms mean that:
- a) we shouldn't have reforms?
- b) the reforms are a bad idea?
- c) the stock market wants to keep making money and doesn't want people to see how much or... how it makes money?
Who fucking cares? The stock market goes UP when the powers that be talk about any form or deregulation, war, and cutting taxes. It goes DOWN when they talk about ANYTHING that's actually good for us. (We can debate whether cutting taxes are good in a later discussion.) Where's the news?
If we all decided, today, that from now on all cars had to use a certain fuel... should we really give a crap if NASCAR drivers complained that the fuel didn't give them the same horsepower? No. We'd tell them to shut the heck up. They can still drive their engines and make their money, we're just asking them to do it in a way not as detrimental to the rest of us. (Note to financiers: this is a blatant metaphor for your stock market!)
The market, like every other business, or more specifically, like every other CORRUPT and evil business, only cares about itself; perpetuating and enriching itself at the expense of the rest of us. So when, five times a day, I hear that "the market reacted badly to..." or "investors are uncertain about" I want to shout at the radio, or the TV, or the internet "TOUGH SHIT- its NOT NEWS!!"
Having spent my entire life at the feeding end of capitalism (a phrase readers of this blog are going to have to get used to), I can tell you that I'm pretty sure the entire concept of a stock market ought to be rethought. Or abolished. But that will be a subject for another blog.
In short, please stop thinking that the stock market's opinion of anything should in any wat influence anything at all. Its all a bunch of bullshit.
Monday, March 30, 2009
"The End is Nigh"
... No, this isn't going to be an reference to the movie "The Watchmen," which featured a character carrying a sign bearing the words "The End is Nigh."
Its a reference to GM and Chrysler.
Today the Obama administration has effectively ousted the CEO of GM, Rick Wagoner, citing that the company's restructuring plans, presented by Wagoner, were not sufficient to make the company viable in the future. There are stories in all the usual places, but I read the Wall Street Journal here and found the story really... shocking. Perhaps I've been avoiding thinking about the broader realities of the economic downturn because like many, I've been affected by cutbacks. But after reading all the stories today (the WSJ, NYT , BBC, and CNN) I have to say... the end IS Nigh.
I feel terrible that these two companies have reached such a state, and am fully aware (or at least think I am) of some of what might follow if the companies are allowed to fail. But they have failed.
Don't forget, if you're reading this, its likely that you, too, have lived through the 70's gas shortage. And the introduction and proliferation of Toyota and other import cars- Subaru, Kia, and Hyundai. Maybe you've forgotten, but I haven't forgotten the days when a Toyota was a piece of plastic junk that my grandmother scoffed at as she drove her huge Pontiac to church, just down the street. I have personally witnessed the changes in in cars since the 1970's- the drive to smaller, more efficient, more economical cars fostered mainly by companies like Toyota.
I mean, Toyota changed their cars to better suit the American market, while still producing better, more economical cars. Thier cars got bigger, and more robust, while still being smaller and more efficient than thier US-made counterparts.
What has GM been doing in the last 40 years? I've watched as GM made token efforts to appeal to people who wanted more efficient, smaller cars, and churned out MORE and BIGGER cars each year; the Chevy Suburban, the Hummer, the Escalade? Who goes off-road in an Escalade. I know- people BOUGHT them, so GM kept making them. Some part of the blame rests on conumers like me, and not just GM and Chrysler. (As an aside, some of my friends might like to throw these statements back in my face, but I still prefer American cars, I still intend to buy American. We'll see.)
GM's answer to the Toyota Prius- a brilliant and great (50mpg) car that even I, the corpulent (to put it nicely) Vox Populi, can fit into- was the Chevy Tahoe, "Hybrid taken to its logical extreme" at 22mpg?! The bigger is always better attitude is still at GM 40 years later. To say nothing of the whole misuse of the phrase "logical extreme."
The last thing I want is for these companies to fold. But I'm afraid it might be better for all of us, in the long run, if they did. They didn't work. They failed as buisnesses, and they failed us as citizens by not changing with the times. If Dell today were, for example, still trying to sell 80386 machines with 64MB of RAM... well how well would they be doing right now? They wouldn't.
And no, I haven't forgotten that they can't exactly change the factories and tooling overnight. But its been 40 years. WE ALL SAW THIS COMING, and if they (as companies) didn't, well then they deserve to be closed. The comapny executives failed to change the direction of the company, the stockholders demanded too much profit, and not enough was reinvested in the company, the union workers failed to notice that if the company failed, they'd all be out of work... the whole thing failed.
I'm still sugar-coating my writing here, because I really feel for these companies, their workers, and all of us who will be affected by the results of all those people out of work...
But I think it's going to have to happen.
I grew up in GM cars. I've slept in the back seat of more Buicks and Pontiacs than... well, than I've slept in hotel rooms. I bought my current car (a Buick!) not because it was most efficient (go ahead and mock me) or was the best fit for my large size (though it was), but because after test driving 7 cars from all over the world, the Buick changed gears when I expected it to: it "felt right."
That has been enough for many of us to keep buying US cars. But no more. I'm just as likely to buy the wrong car for the wrong reasons as anyone, and so I'm just an ordinary consumer just like everyone else. But right now, the writing on the wall seems to suggest the time is up for GM and Chrysler, and as I read the words, my heart answers...
"Yeah, I think it is."
Its a reference to GM and Chrysler.
Today the Obama administration has effectively ousted the CEO of GM, Rick Wagoner, citing that the company's restructuring plans, presented by Wagoner, were not sufficient to make the company viable in the future. There are stories in all the usual places, but I read the Wall Street Journal here and found the story really... shocking. Perhaps I've been avoiding thinking about the broader realities of the economic downturn because like many, I've been affected by cutbacks. But after reading all the stories today (the WSJ, NYT , BBC, and CNN) I have to say... the end IS Nigh.
I feel terrible that these two companies have reached such a state, and am fully aware (or at least think I am) of some of what might follow if the companies are allowed to fail. But they have failed.
Don't forget, if you're reading this, its likely that you, too, have lived through the 70's gas shortage. And the introduction and proliferation of Toyota and other import cars- Subaru, Kia, and Hyundai. Maybe you've forgotten, but I haven't forgotten the days when a Toyota was a piece of plastic junk that my grandmother scoffed at as she drove her huge Pontiac to church, just down the street. I have personally witnessed the changes in in cars since the 1970's- the drive to smaller, more efficient, more economical cars fostered mainly by companies like Toyota.
I mean, Toyota changed their cars to better suit the American market, while still producing better, more economical cars. Thier cars got bigger, and more robust, while still being smaller and more efficient than thier US-made counterparts.
What has GM been doing in the last 40 years? I've watched as GM made token efforts to appeal to people who wanted more efficient, smaller cars, and churned out MORE and BIGGER cars each year; the Chevy Suburban, the Hummer, the Escalade? Who goes off-road in an Escalade. I know- people BOUGHT them, so GM kept making them. Some part of the blame rests on conumers like me, and not just GM and Chrysler. (As an aside, some of my friends might like to throw these statements back in my face, but I still prefer American cars, I still intend to buy American. We'll see.)
GM's answer to the Toyota Prius- a brilliant and great (50mpg) car that even I, the corpulent (to put it nicely) Vox Populi, can fit into- was the Chevy Tahoe, "Hybrid taken to its logical extreme" at 22mpg?! The bigger is always better attitude is still at GM 40 years later. To say nothing of the whole misuse of the phrase "logical extreme."
The last thing I want is for these companies to fold. But I'm afraid it might be better for all of us, in the long run, if they did. They didn't work. They failed as buisnesses, and they failed us as citizens by not changing with the times. If Dell today were, for example, still trying to sell 80386 machines with 64MB of RAM... well how well would they be doing right now? They wouldn't.
And no, I haven't forgotten that they can't exactly change the factories and tooling overnight. But its been 40 years. WE ALL SAW THIS COMING, and if they (as companies) didn't, well then they deserve to be closed. The comapny executives failed to change the direction of the company, the stockholders demanded too much profit, and not enough was reinvested in the company, the union workers failed to notice that if the company failed, they'd all be out of work... the whole thing failed.
I'm still sugar-coating my writing here, because I really feel for these companies, their workers, and all of us who will be affected by the results of all those people out of work...
But I think it's going to have to happen.
I grew up in GM cars. I've slept in the back seat of more Buicks and Pontiacs than... well, than I've slept in hotel rooms. I bought my current car (a Buick!) not because it was most efficient (go ahead and mock me) or was the best fit for my large size (though it was), but because after test driving 7 cars from all over the world, the Buick changed gears when I expected it to: it "felt right."
That has been enough for many of us to keep buying US cars. But no more. I'm just as likely to buy the wrong car for the wrong reasons as anyone, and so I'm just an ordinary consumer just like everyone else. But right now, the writing on the wall seems to suggest the time is up for GM and Chrysler, and as I read the words, my heart answers...
"Yeah, I think it is."
Friday, March 20, 2009
No lack of consequences this time!
Most of us have been affected by the current economy in various ways, and I'll spare you the expected sob stories or diatribes. However, one thing that's always bothered me was a lack of consequences for a lot of white collar or political... crimes. CEO's (or political hacks) run a company (or our country) into the ground, lose billions in investor money, cost hundreds of people jobs (both directly and indirectly)... and then walk away rich and do it all over again at some other company or government agency. Who hires people who do that? Who works with them, or the companies they go on to represent?
I think its great that disgraced Attorney General Alberto Gonzales can't get a job, but SHOCKED that Donald Rumsfeld and John Ashcroft, who went into business for themselves, have found people willing to pay for their services... That's just wrong. (As an aside, if you're reading this, I think all references to disgraced former Attourney General Alberto Gonzales should ALWAYS be written "Disgraced Atourney General Alberto Gonzales," so that his name will forever be associated with disgrace. Are you with me?)
Well, maybe their days of ease are over. The New York Times is reporting that people known to be associated with, among other companies, AIG, are being publicly scorned and in some cases even threatened, due to the behaviors of the company they work for.
Here are some quotes from that story:
>The Connecticut Working Families party, which has support from organized labor, is planning a bus tour of A.I.G. executives’ homes on Saturday, with a stop at the company’s Wilton office.
>“We’re going to be peaceful and lawful in everything we do,” said Jon Green, the director of Connecticut Working Families. “I know there’s a lot of anger and a lot of rage about what’s happened. We’re not looking to foment that unnecessarily, but what we want to do is give folks in Bridgeport and Hartford and other parts of Connecticut who are struggling and losing their homes and their jobs and their health insurance an opportunity to see what kinds of lifestyle billions of dollars in credit-default swaps can buy.”
I think its GREAT that there's enough public outcry that we can finally bring a sense of shame to the very people who have been ripping us all off for so long. We should bring back Ostracism!
To quote from the above link:
Ostracism (Greek: οστρακισμός ostrakismos) was a procedure under the Athenian democracy in which a prominent citizen could be expelled from the city-state of Athens for ten years. While some instances clearly expressed popular anger at the victim, ostracism was often used pre-emptively. It was used as a way of defusing major confrontations between rival politicians (by removing one of them from the scene), neutralizing someone thought to be a threat to the state, or exiling a potential tyrant. Crucially, ostracism had no relation to the processes of justice. There was no charge or defence, and the exile was not in fact a penalty; it was simply a command from the Athenian people that one of their number be gone for ten years.
They don't have to commit a "crime." They don't have to be "in power." And there doesn't have to be any trial. Enough of us have to agree that some people ought not to be allowed to live among us. How beautiful is that? I have a potsherd here with Alberto Gonzales' name already scratched on it...
More from the NYT Story:
>Others in A.I.G.’s neighborhood were clearly angry. Tamara King, an immigration specialist at a health care company whose office is adjacent to the A.I.G. quarters, said she feels disgust each time she walks past it.
It is unfortunate that some people working for these companies who are innocent of any real wrongdoing are being ostracized, and I certainly don't condone threats to a person or (can you believe it?) their children, but I can surely get behind a group of people standing in front of the house of an AIG exec with sign protesting their actions, policies, and arrogance. How is that exec going to explain a peaceful protest to his/her daughter? Night after night? Sure, they'll probably lie to her too, but the idea is making bad people feel ashamed of having done bad. Its one of the few motivators we as a society have left to dissuade people from committing certain crimes?
After all, if they get thier kicks from driving out of thier long driveway in thier long white limo, how much satisfaction will there be if, instead of envy, they are greeted with jeers and tomatoes? And the important bit is that they know they've done something wrong. They can't hide behind anonymity (like drug dealers), or ambiguity, because these are prominent people who aspire to status. I think a lot fewer of these scumbags will behave this way if they fear they'll be stripped of thier right to strut if we all know how they got thier money...
I'll be the first to say that this kind of... direct personal protest is problematic. Throughout history, this kind of protest was what we now call persecution- think Witch trials or pogroms- but I also think that our society is sorely missing a much-needed sense of responsibility for...well, everybody.
I want a national database of where disgraced former Bush Administration officials are working today, so we can all avoid doing business with those companies, and the companies that still do. I want to know who thinks its a great idea to hire a CEO who's made billions while effectively burning down the house we live in. And I want enough of us to vote with our pocketbooks, and stop giving our money to companies who support people whom they ought to be ashamed to associate with. If they're not... we won't give them our business.
Let's bring back some form of ostracim. Our first nominees can be anyone from AIG who took, and kept, a ludicuos "bonus" after we taxpayers bailed out the company they ran into the ground, to the detriment of us all.
I think its great that disgraced Attorney General Alberto Gonzales can't get a job, but SHOCKED that Donald Rumsfeld and John Ashcroft, who went into business for themselves, have found people willing to pay for their services... That's just wrong. (As an aside, if you're reading this, I think all references to disgraced former Attourney General Alberto Gonzales should ALWAYS be written "Disgraced Atourney General Alberto Gonzales," so that his name will forever be associated with disgrace. Are you with me?)
Well, maybe their days of ease are over. The New York Times is reporting that people known to be associated with, among other companies, AIG, are being publicly scorned and in some cases even threatened, due to the behaviors of the company they work for.
Here are some quotes from that story:
>The Connecticut Working Families party, which has support from organized labor, is planning a bus tour of A.I.G. executives’ homes on Saturday, with a stop at the company’s Wilton office.
>“We’re going to be peaceful and lawful in everything we do,” said Jon Green, the director of Connecticut Working Families. “I know there’s a lot of anger and a lot of rage about what’s happened. We’re not looking to foment that unnecessarily, but what we want to do is give folks in Bridgeport and Hartford and other parts of Connecticut who are struggling and losing their homes and their jobs and their health insurance an opportunity to see what kinds of lifestyle billions of dollars in credit-default swaps can buy.”
I think its GREAT that there's enough public outcry that we can finally bring a sense of shame to the very people who have been ripping us all off for so long. We should bring back Ostracism!
To quote from the above link:
Ostracism (Greek: οστρακισμός ostrakismos) was a procedure under the Athenian democracy in which a prominent citizen could be expelled from the city-state of Athens for ten years. While some instances clearly expressed popular anger at the victim, ostracism was often used pre-emptively. It was used as a way of defusing major confrontations between rival politicians (by removing one of them from the scene), neutralizing someone thought to be a threat to the state, or exiling a potential tyrant. Crucially, ostracism had no relation to the processes of justice. There was no charge or defence, and the exile was not in fact a penalty; it was simply a command from the Athenian people that one of their number be gone for ten years.
They don't have to commit a "crime." They don't have to be "in power." And there doesn't have to be any trial. Enough of us have to agree that some people ought not to be allowed to live among us. How beautiful is that? I have a potsherd here with Alberto Gonzales' name already scratched on it...
More from the NYT Story:
>Others in A.I.G.’s neighborhood were clearly angry. Tamara King, an immigration specialist at a health care company whose office is adjacent to the A.I.G. quarters, said she feels disgust each time she walks past it.
"You don’t want to associate with them because it’s not a reflection on the state, it’s not a reflection on us," she said. But she added, “You have so many people out of a job, and these people think they can take the money and run." [Italics mine]
It is unfortunate that some people working for these companies who are innocent of any real wrongdoing are being ostracized, and I certainly don't condone threats to a person or (can you believe it?) their children, but I can surely get behind a group of people standing in front of the house of an AIG exec with sign protesting their actions, policies, and arrogance. How is that exec going to explain a peaceful protest to his/her daughter? Night after night? Sure, they'll probably lie to her too, but the idea is making bad people feel ashamed of having done bad. Its one of the few motivators we as a society have left to dissuade people from committing certain crimes?
After all, if they get thier kicks from driving out of thier long driveway in thier long white limo, how much satisfaction will there be if, instead of envy, they are greeted with jeers and tomatoes? And the important bit is that they know they've done something wrong. They can't hide behind anonymity (like drug dealers), or ambiguity, because these are prominent people who aspire to status. I think a lot fewer of these scumbags will behave this way if they fear they'll be stripped of thier right to strut if we all know how they got thier money...
I'll be the first to say that this kind of... direct personal protest is problematic. Throughout history, this kind of protest was what we now call persecution- think Witch trials or pogroms- but I also think that our society is sorely missing a much-needed sense of responsibility for...well, everybody.
I want a national database of where disgraced former Bush Administration officials are working today, so we can all avoid doing business with those companies, and the companies that still do. I want to know who thinks its a great idea to hire a CEO who's made billions while effectively burning down the house we live in. And I want enough of us to vote with our pocketbooks, and stop giving our money to companies who support people whom they ought to be ashamed to associate with. If they're not... we won't give them our business.
Let's bring back some form of ostracim. Our first nominees can be anyone from AIG who took, and kept, a ludicuos "bonus" after we taxpayers bailed out the company they ran into the ground, to the detriment of us all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)