Scraps

The "New Car" Scam

I write this a day before GM is expected to file for bankruptcy. This is not a good thing. Our economy will suffer, and unemployment will rise. Lots of finger-pointing and moaning in the media. One likely result being talked about is whether Americans will buy new cars as often as they have. Will the "new economy" support that habit, or kill it.

I say, if it dies, good riddance. It was built on a lie anyway. Somehow, it became a necessary part of "the American Dream" for people to trade in the car they bought just two or three years ago in order to have the thrill of having a fresh one, right off the line. And of course, the used model would be sold to those "second tier" consumers who couldn't afford a new car.

What was really driving this practice? The first owner was probably getting good service out of his car. Why shell out so many bucks for a new one? How much better was it going to be?

Somehow, one of the triumphs of Madison Avenue was that it could get so many "first tier" consumers to believe that continuing to drive their two or three year old car was a diminution of their lifestyle, but get multitudes of other people to think those same cars were a big improvement on theirs.

Username

What's the deal with usernames? I can understand why it's used in social websites like Facebook, but why require it for security purposes? I'm sure we've all had to request the password when going back to a website you haven't been to for a while, but I've also been asked to give my username. That means two annoying functions when only one should be necessary. If a site knows my email address, it should just request the password.

First Couple's Big Night

Oh, what a big story! Our president and his wife came to New York for a Broadway show and dinner out. Media saturation! Look how he keeps his campaign promise to Michelle. A sweet, sweet story.

Today is Sunday. So far, I haven't heard a peep out of the other side. How long do you think that's going to last? You wanna bet tomorrow, the latest, we get a computation - to the penny! - of how much it cost the taxpayers.

You can count on it.

Deadbeat Surcharge

Surcharge? Of what, you ask. I'll explain later, but first I want to introduce my friend, Mike Sucker. He told me this story and asked what I thought. I've asked him to tell it to you too.

"Hi, my name is Mike Sucker, but my friends call me Suck. About once a month, I like to treat myself to a nice, dry martini. I like a well-appointed bar for this, kinda place with no TV, relaxing music and sleek women to look at. My favorite has a friendly bartender named Stanton."

"So I get my usual the other day and, ahhh, it satisfies. Stanton knows, and he smiles in appreciation. Everything's hunky until I get the bill, and I see an extra two dollars for my libation. I ask Stanton if it's a mistake."

'No, Suck. It's just we've got a surcharge now.'

'Surcharge?'

'You see that guy over at the end of the bar?'

'Him?' I point to a man in a dark suit.

'No, behind him. Guy with the earring.'

'Yeah. What about him?'

'He can't pay today. Means we've got to surcharge the regulars.'

'Me? But I'm always good up front. I never leave with an open tab.

'Exactly. Who better to bleed?'

I register dismay. Stanton shrugs.

'Hey, c'mon, Suck. Our relationship should be worth something, right?'

So I pay up, we fist bump and I leave."

I hope you found Suck's tale as edifying as I did. We've known each other a long time, and he unburdened his dilemma to me. Did I think what Stanton did was right? It didn't seem fair somehow. But he really likes going to that bar. He wanted to know how to express his doubts about the new policy without offending Stanton.

I gave Suck my answer slowly, in measured cadence but in language I need not repeat here. In effect, I told him that I would never go back to that bar again.

What a coincidence, then, that the very next day, I read an article in the N.Y. Times (5/19/09) about how credit card companies intend to deal with the new regulatory environment in the industry. In fact, the new rules became law later this week. An industry spokesman quoted in the article said that it will be a different business in that those who manage their credit well will subsidize those with credit problems. Another commentator, a publisher this time, is quoted as saying that the dependable payment customers - and we know who we are - have been enjoying a "free ride" because we don't pay annual fees and we collect points for new purchases. He said that I - and the others like me - make out "like a bandit."

The article went on to explain that the "deadbeats" in the industry are not the ones whose debts keep piling up every month but, instead, are you and I, and the other 50 million creditworthy cardholders, who don't generate fee revenues because we - for shame! - pay on time.

It seems that "deadbeats" like us will now be surcharged for this. This might take the form of higher base interest rates, shorter grace periods and other "hidden" fees.

They'd better hide them well. I intend from now on to scrutinize my credit bills like they're Nancy Pelosi's subcommittee notes. And if I find a surcharge that is meant to offset the loss of revenue resulting from new government protection for the credit "unworthy" - yes, those whom we used to call "deadbeats" - then I'll find a company without those fees, and if I can't, then I'll pay in cash. I did that last week in a restaurant for the first time in years, and I survived.

And then, I'll take Mike Sucker out for a martini at a nice tavern I know, where they only charge you for your own drinks but still know how to make a decent profit in America.

Bravo Lucas and Dukakis!

Craig Lucas' The Singing Forest has been lambasted by a number of critics, and for some good reasons. It is overlong, confusing and dramatically unresolved. But with all that, the critics are wrong. This is exciting, original and propulsive theatre. The program notes said that Lucas has been working on the play for nearly a decade. I hope that he won't stop now because it is a potential masterwork.

Just when you thought there was nothing new anyone could say about the Holocaust, Lucas shows us that we haven't been looking in the right places. Describing the plot - which is of breathtaking scope - would be foolhardy, and could never convey the dazzling brilliance of the writing. Suffice to say that the play starts with the interplay of a few minor characters, and eventually leads to the repressed guilt of an old woman, a retired therapist who is a Holocaust survivor, and the secrets behind the birth of her twin son and daughter, from whom she is now estranged. The son, also a therapist, is homosexual and is facing a professional crisis that could lead to the loss of his license. The daughter, a woman who is in an almost constant state of hysteria, has a teenage son who is an emotional cripple, and barely functions. For reasons of dizzying complexity, numerous characters keep stealing each other's identities until the entire cast, most of whom play dual roles, converge on the woman's home in Staten Island, and the horrible secrets of the past are finally exposed.

What keeps us holding on to this "runaway horses" plot is the speed, wit and tantalizing nuance with which Lucas reveals new facets of these characters' lives. The shifts in tone are masterfully orchestrated, but the ultimite effect is of witnessing the implosion of a huge, multi-generational structure of lies collapsing into rubble. The play ends on a note of hope, and possible forgiveness and reconciliation.

Unfortunately, that note is sour, and sounds nothing like a dramatically satisfying conclusion. While it is always wonderful to hear Mahler, playing his music at the final curtain doesn't solve the play's problems. There just may be too many characters screaming at each other in that house in Staten Island, and the subplot involving the son's devious efforts to get another therapist to sleep with one of his patients - and I'm not sure I've got that right - is too convoluted for me. Also, a few of the scenes are too long or even superfluous.

And yet, the dramatic truth of the story emerges in the play's devastating flashback scenes in the last act, in which the theme of redemption is finally stated outright. Taking us to that point would not have been possible without the amazing Olympia Dukakis, who lends a tragic dimension to the old woman. The awful weight of her guilt is always present, even when she is telling lies to a stranger on a sex hotline. The character is required to shift in an instant from feeble exhaustion to vicious sarcasm to roaring vengeance, and she is commanding at every moment. And yet, with all this Freudian melodrama - did I mention that Freud himself has a speaking role? - she still gets all of her laughs on cue.

Some of those laughs are big, too. This is a funny, funny play about ideas that are not. We are never told what we are supposed to feel, and I know that makes some audiences uncomfortable. As for me, that's what I go to the theatre for. I hope to see this imperfect play again - it is closing this week - in a new production, but with Dukakis again in the lead.

A final note: this a time when a number of people are advocating the criminal prosecution of both the defenders and practitioners of torture in the Bush administration. But I don't think anyone makes the case as strongly as this play, which never even mentions the subject. We may argue the political and legal questions, but Craig Lucas reminds us here that the need for justice is basically a human one, and that its pursuit does not stop just because the case is officially closed. Under extreme circumstances, we are all capable of shameful acts. But does exoneration by the rest of the world really stop the process? Somehow our own unresolved guilt will inevitably poison our relationships with those we love, even to the point of ruining their lives. The truth may be ugly, he says, but never forget the costs of burying it.

Suicide By Journalism

As a devoted reader of the The New York Times, it is sad to read of its recent financial troubles. But when you look at the front page of today's paper, you can understand why it's happening. Somehow, the "Gray Lady" still doesn't get it. In my imagination, I see it being attacked by the Blue Meanies, like the inhabitants of Pepperland. This attack causes it to freeze into a timeless obsolescence. But, unlike the movie, there is no Sergeant Pepper coming to rescue it.

First, the far right column lead is about the doctor shortage. It is a matter of great concern to me, especially since I'm of the age when I will need to see them with ever greater frequency.

It was a good introduction to the problem; well written, nice map and graphic, cogent. Then , suddenly, it was over. Even continued inside the paper, it was barely half a page.

On the far left of the page, the Times gave prime space to our enigmatic Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner. An insert pic shows him speaking, in obvious discomfort (probably to a reporter).

The front page space of both articles was about the same. But inside...wow! The Big T gets two full pages, complete with dramatic poses, in color, one showing him, like Old Sol himself, surrounded by a system of graying white males. Captive to his gravitational pull, they seem to move, clockwise, at his command.

The article bannered him "Overseer of Finance Club". About his "ties" to Wall Street. You know the patter. But it probably has a lot of details none of us ever knew. I bet some of them are embarrassing. Yes, I said "embarrassing".

Anything like news in all that? I wouldn't know. That's because I have absolutely no intention of reading the article.

Period.

The "Fun" Family

Perhaps I'm coming late to this, but it seems that the predominant source of "fun" in the culture has centered itself in the family experience. I bet this has been the case for some time now, but my own social perspective has been shaped by the culture of the 50's, and that was not the case then. At least not from the male perspective.

Although Playboy came out in the early 50's, the real sexual revolution came after that. The availability of the birth control pill made "casual" or "no strings" sex a genuine lifestyle. This was supposed to be the "fun" part of adulthood (although by then I was already married and the father of two).

But even for the guys who missed it, like me, just being free and able to taste the pleasures of single life was considered the "fun" part before the "responsibilities" of married life took over. I don't remember any of the young men my age who got married who had the expectation that they were just entering the fun part. Being the adult meant that this part was over, and you had the responsibility of having a career and raising your family. Having children was the most important part of that, but I don't think the culture had yet defined it as a "fun" experience.

Part of the culture of the 50's and early 60's was the playboy or "bachelor" icon, like Steve McQueen in The Thomas Crown Affair or James Bond in the 60's. Even earlier, in the 50's, the swinging bachelor, often an older adult like Bob Cummings or Charlie Farrell in My Little Margie, was a familiar TV sitcom character. Having a gorgeous babe, or two or three, was the fantasy of teenage boys or the poor married shlub who toiled for the family paycheck. Being the daddy meant leaving behind any chance of actually living like those icons.

Then, sometime in the late seventies I suppose, the "Family Experience" began to assume a dominant position in the culture and the economy. Perhaps, after the rootless armies of babyboomers actually started raising their own families, it became apparent that the future of marketing to this dominant sector of the economy was to appeal to them in a different way. After all, they suddenly needed to make money for things other than bachelorhood and casual sex. And so, with an almost imperceptible stealth, a new kind of fantasy life was formed. That of the joys, the delights and the life-fulfilling adventure of parenthood. I think that by the time the Steve Martin movie of that title was released, in 1987 I think, the fantasy had already taken over the top spot.

Movies are, as ever, the most reliable litmus of the culture. The endless stream of animated fare with talking animals has conquered the multiplex, and even outgrosses the teenage date movies about stalking maniacs, or the new staple of teenage fantasies, comic book superheroes.

The animation boom fits right in with the other shared family joys: taking the tykes to the restaurant, the family vacations in national parks, the Disney on Broadway, the soccer practice and, of course, the endless recording of every moment in the latest gadget from the mall, much of which will wind up on youtube.

Not to forget the necessity of a cellphone for every family member, who will multiply the family joys by describing their moment-to moment experiences to each other, in detail, even if they will see each other only a half hour later.

It has been that way ever since. Today, the swinging bachelor of the past has been replaced by the misfit daydreamers, like Seth Rogan and his buddies, who perpetuate rituals preserved from high school, more out of habit than pleasure, but who are only waiting for some gorgeous, aggressive babe to drag them, kicking and screaming, into the only true happiness they will ever know, raising a family.

Global Unions

An interesting proposal was made in the N.Y. Times last week about labor unions extending membership to workers across the globe, and not just within one country. The writer, Jennifer Gordon, a professor at Fordham Law School, believes that workers are migrating at an increasing rate, and that it makes sense to provide membership protection across borders. That way they could more easily move to regions with a shortage of workers, or return to their home countries when the job outlook improved.

Her primary interest, however, seemed to be the greater protection it offered from employers' poor working conditions. Specifically, she felt that if the United States recognized such a union, it would lead to better enforcement of labor laws, since the workers would be more willing to testify against employer-violaters if they didn't fear immediate deportation, which is the situation now.

This is an idea worth exploring, although it presents problems. For instance, Gordon would require that the workers promise to report violating employers or risk deportation if they refuse. But this only trades one power imbalance for its opposite, but equally unfair counterpart. The temptation would be too great for a worker to finger his boss as a way to maintain his residency, especially if the worker had some other reason to fear deportation.

I hope Gordon's idea gets some serious attention. But it got me to think about the current state of the labor movement in this country. Instead of coming up with new approaches, the old guard keeps insisting on the same tired old class warfare. I'm referring to the ban on secret ballots in the Employee Free Choice Act, which was recently introduced in Congress. That could mean that a company's workers could have union recognition if they collected signed "authorization cards" from a majority of employees.

How could anybody in his right mind call this an election? It could mean that union promoters could harass other workers, with no regualtion at all, so that they would have to sign the cards just to stop the harassment. And with no deadline for a vote, any worker could expect to have it continue no matter how many times he refused to sign as a matter of principle.

I don't think that unions need to do this to regain their power. The role of a labor union is changing because the workforce is changing, inevitably, as the world moves at greater speed toward global, or transnational, trade agreements. Technology is making it possible for any worker with a sound basic education to have his or her skills transferred to new industries or to a totally different occupation. Like it or not, companies will have less and less of a need for a workforce of permanent employees, in any particular location, who will be expected to have the same job for an extended career. That means that labor unions will need to organize a more diverse membership than ever before.

At any rate, organized labor will be entering a period of transition, with much excitement and volatility ahead.

Just Asking

By now, the entire population of at least one planet knows that the New York Post printed a "racist" cartoon last week which, it is charged, likened President Obama to a chimpanzee. The racism hustlers like Al Sharpton have been operating at full boil, and there continue to be demonstrations and calls for the cartoonist and editor to be fired.

I only heard about the cartoon from a TV report on the controversy, which means that I could not see it "fresh" so to speak. But I think I would have taken it literally: this was a satirical jab at the stimulus package by a right wing paper, and it condemned everyone connected with the bill. I would not have seen a racist subtext which pointed to the President. After all, it was Congress that actually "wrote" the bill, or at least wrote more of it than Obama did. You might even say that people who actually read that imaginary message were seeing a "missing link" (sorry).

But truth is irrelevant to this mob. Even Julian Bond, nobody's idea of a showboat, pushed the wacky (and potentially dangerous) suggestion that it was an implied call to assassinate the President.

But something else is missing here, and it relates to why I haven't heard any public figure or anyone in the media mention it at all. The most glaring omission in this entire brouhaha is the President's own reaction to the cartoon. After all, he is the one who is supposed to be offended. Why has'nt he made a public comment? And, much more important, why has nobody asked him what he thinks?

I think I know why. It is because the power groups that feed off of our cultural divisions, including the media, are afraid of what he might say. By now, we are pretty confident that someone as practiced in "togetherness" jargon as Obama would rephrase the conflict into something that would be so bland that nobody would be guilty of anything! And yes, that even includes the New York Post!

A circle of protection has formed around the President. Racism is simply too profitable a product to lose, and public outrage is one of its biggest moneymakers. President Obama threatens "white guilt" peddlers like Sharpton because his soothing academic demeanor is a real buzzkill. Instead, better to let the self-appointed guardians of their race speak for him. You can be sure they never asked his permission.