Some weeks ago I castigated Democrats for sponsoring a pending bill which would prohibit secret ballot elections for workers to unionize. The bill said, roughly, that a majority of workers submitting signed ballots, over an extended period, would be sufficient for the union to be recognized. I felt it was a ploy to intimidate workers to sign up, and the employer had no chance to oppose it.
But now, the bill doesn't seem so bad. What made me re-think this is a story in the NY Times (8/30/09) about the Regis Corporation, a nationwide chain of hair salons, which asked workers at a branch in Montana to sign a document which would nullify any pro-union card they may sign in the future. The head of the company defended it, saying it was "totally voluntary" and was only meant to preserve the choice of secret elections.
Oh, really! And how exactly was it supposed to do this? Wait, I'll answer that. With a collection of these cards, an employer could know who wouldn't sign as well as those who did. The employer could then focus (read target) messages to the former group which would hint, ever so subtly, that their company loyalty was, ahem, less than desired. But just as important, the company would know the identity of workers who signed both the company card and a pro-union card later on. These workers might then be startled to find themselves named by the company in a federal lawsuit to void the union election!
That's a handy little list for any company.
I still prefer the secret ballot, but it's obvious that Regis, and probably many other companies, have no concern for workers' privacy. Otherwise it wouldn't have been so willing to adopt the same coercive measures it was attributing to the unions.
If the secret ballot is lost, so be it. There's nothing that makes me switch sides faster than seeing the side I was supporting come up with an idea that is both devious and stupid!
Monday, August 31, 2009
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Riding Dodo
Isn't it time for a reconsideration of taxi fare cruising in the city? We've made so much progress in urban transportation, why is it we're satisfied with such a wasteful, dirty and inefficient practice? The swarms of yellow roaches clog the streets, especially in Manhattan, but no longer serve the modern lifestyle. We have one of the most cost effective and comprehensive public transportation systems in the world. We are continually adapting the system to the latest innovations, such as computerized subway and bus fare collection and disability access. Yet the taxicab plague never changes.
Defenders, of course, will say that the cabs are adapting too, and point to greater fuel efficiency and safety features. But that only evades the issue. The real waste is in having the beasts roam about the city in packs, belching their fumes without letup, with no passenger inside! It's the equivalent of selling encyclopedias door-to-door. Does anyone remember that?
We need to devise a system to order, reserve and deliver pick-up service that uses the internet and mobile technology. A cab subscription service, for instance, can have a registered user dial a number from a smartphone and enter the destination points for the ride. The car can then be driven to the user's location, drive to the destination and then park until the next call. Or else, if one of the cars is already parked close by, the service can simply tell the user where it is. There should only be very brief periods of non-use in busy commercial areas.
The cars should look like normal vehicles and not be identified as belonging to the service until they are parked, when the driver posts a flag, or something like that, so that the subscriber can find it. Otherwise, when the car is between calls, the driver will be tempted to cruise the car like a regular taxi for a little off-the-books income.
I think that such a subscription service can be profitable. A simple study of the most frequent trips and times of use can reveal the right number of cars and the most accessible stations for them. This, in turn, will determine the monthly charges for the subscribers. And I bet that the city will be glad to set aside many parking spots for the cars because the system will reduce congestion so much.
The zipcar is a laudable attempt to provide an alternative to taxis, but non-drivers can't use it. My system provides full taxi service, but without the negatives. It's time for some enterprising entrepreneur to make the move. The urban taxi is on the way out -- it is a dodo -- and I'd like to hurry that along.
Defenders, of course, will say that the cabs are adapting too, and point to greater fuel efficiency and safety features. But that only evades the issue. The real waste is in having the beasts roam about the city in packs, belching their fumes without letup, with no passenger inside! It's the equivalent of selling encyclopedias door-to-door. Does anyone remember that?
We need to devise a system to order, reserve and deliver pick-up service that uses the internet and mobile technology. A cab subscription service, for instance, can have a registered user dial a number from a smartphone and enter the destination points for the ride. The car can then be driven to the user's location, drive to the destination and then park until the next call. Or else, if one of the cars is already parked close by, the service can simply tell the user where it is. There should only be very brief periods of non-use in busy commercial areas.
The cars should look like normal vehicles and not be identified as belonging to the service until they are parked, when the driver posts a flag, or something like that, so that the subscriber can find it. Otherwise, when the car is between calls, the driver will be tempted to cruise the car like a regular taxi for a little off-the-books income.
I think that such a subscription service can be profitable. A simple study of the most frequent trips and times of use can reveal the right number of cars and the most accessible stations for them. This, in turn, will determine the monthly charges for the subscribers. And I bet that the city will be glad to set aside many parking spots for the cars because the system will reduce congestion so much.
The zipcar is a laudable attempt to provide an alternative to taxis, but non-drivers can't use it. My system provides full taxi service, but without the negatives. It's time for some enterprising entrepreneur to make the move. The urban taxi is on the way out -- it is a dodo -- and I'd like to hurry that along.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Violence in Film: An Adult View
I don't do film reviews any more, but sometimes I will write about films as a springboard for views on another subject. I recently saw one of last year's major films, The Dark Knight, and I was impressed. It was a brilliant entertainment, by far the best superhero movie I've seen. While its most exciting achievement was the amazing performance of Heath Ledger as the Joker (tragically, his last), the film worked on other levels as well: as a clever sendup of superhero films in general -- here the criminals punish the citizens of Gotham because Batman is their protector, not in spite of him -- and as a meditation on the deep, tribal need of society for the hero to protect us from our own appetite for evil, which we can never give up, but will never admit.
Director Christopher Nolan did an unusually skillful job. In execution, the film was solid and imaginative; there were no weak elements. Conceptually, however, there was a major one: the character of Batman himself. There is no way I can accept any person who chooses to behave in such a preposterous manner as a mature adult. Dressing up in Halloween costume to shoot it out with one dimensional (if even that) bad guys is a kid's fantasy. But it was never my fantasy, even as a kid. The real bad guys of this world, such as suicidal terrorsts, see themselves as heroes, and the list of grievances they have against society are often -- when seen from their perspective -- a legitimate reason to act. Only not in the ways they have chosen.
For me, a more satisfying film, one that has a genuinely adult perspective on violence, is Steven Spielberg's Munich. We see how an undeniably barbaric act -- the slaughter of the Israeli athletes at the Olympics -- can be the impetus for a secret, extravagantly organized campaign to kill the terrorists responsible for it, and for this to be undertaken as a political necessity. Unlike Batman, the Israeli team seeks out their chosen victims in moments of peaceful relaxation, often with their families, who are innocent, but will be killed anyway.
Also unlike Batman, the leader of the Israeli team experiences a transformation in his attitude towards violence. Sure, Batman suffers emotionally as well, but never from the act of killing. After all, these are bad guys, and they must be stopped. Conveniently, he is always around to kill them just when they are doing their bad guy things again. But the hero of the Spielberg film has poor timing. He is unable to move out of the way of his own humanity, which is, of course, always within him. The revulsion against the act of killing, even of our enemies, is almost a character in the film. By the end, we are meant to see his rejection of violence as a way of life, even when justified, as a kind of heroic act. But maybe not super-heroic.
Director Christopher Nolan did an unusually skillful job. In execution, the film was solid and imaginative; there were no weak elements. Conceptually, however, there was a major one: the character of Batman himself. There is no way I can accept any person who chooses to behave in such a preposterous manner as a mature adult. Dressing up in Halloween costume to shoot it out with one dimensional (if even that) bad guys is a kid's fantasy. But it was never my fantasy, even as a kid. The real bad guys of this world, such as suicidal terrorsts, see themselves as heroes, and the list of grievances they have against society are often -- when seen from their perspective -- a legitimate reason to act. Only not in the ways they have chosen.
For me, a more satisfying film, one that has a genuinely adult perspective on violence, is Steven Spielberg's Munich. We see how an undeniably barbaric act -- the slaughter of the Israeli athletes at the Olympics -- can be the impetus for a secret, extravagantly organized campaign to kill the terrorists responsible for it, and for this to be undertaken as a political necessity. Unlike Batman, the Israeli team seeks out their chosen victims in moments of peaceful relaxation, often with their families, who are innocent, but will be killed anyway.
Also unlike Batman, the leader of the Israeli team experiences a transformation in his attitude towards violence. Sure, Batman suffers emotionally as well, but never from the act of killing. After all, these are bad guys, and they must be stopped. Conveniently, he is always around to kill them just when they are doing their bad guy things again. But the hero of the Spielberg film has poor timing. He is unable to move out of the way of his own humanity, which is, of course, always within him. The revulsion against the act of killing, even of our enemies, is almost a character in the film. By the end, we are meant to see his rejection of violence as a way of life, even when justified, as a kind of heroic act. But maybe not super-heroic.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Crowley Lost Control of the Situation
Since everybody else is weighing in on this, let me put in mine. Even with facts in dispute, such as when and how many times Crowley was asked his name and badge number, we can agree that this mess could have been avoided. And, without saying that Professor Gates is beyond reproach, it was up to the person who was most in control to do that. The person in control was Sergeant Crowley. Once Crowley was finished doing his job, he should have gotten the hell out of there.
But I don't want to make assumptions about the facts either. The arrest would have been proper if Gates had in any way interfered with Crowley's departure, such as blocking his way. If, for instance, he stood in front of the door until he got an apology. Or else, if he laid his hands on him, or threatened him physically. But the news reports don't even hint that this happened.
It would also have been improper for Gates to interfere with an ongoing police investigation. I give Crowley the benefit of the doubt on this. If he still had questions in his own mind about the alleged break-in, it would be proper for him to stay until they were answered. But again, the news reports seem to say that Crowley had concluded there was no break-in, and that Gates had every right to be there, in his own home.
Should Crowley have then apologized, and then left? The apology question is irrelevant to me, although Gates certainly has a case for one. No, Crowley was wrong because he had passed the point where he had a legitimate professional reason to remain. Whether Gates was overreacting by calling the officer a racist did not give Crowley any reason to engage in an angry debate. Gates was probably getting angrier, and louder, every time Crowley answered him. At that point, it didn't matter who had the best talking (or yelling) points, the situation could only get worse.
And it did. But the arrest -- while improper in itself -- only resulted from Crowley's first mistake of not leaving when he had finished doing his job.
But I don't want to make assumptions about the facts either. The arrest would have been proper if Gates had in any way interfered with Crowley's departure, such as blocking his way. If, for instance, he stood in front of the door until he got an apology. Or else, if he laid his hands on him, or threatened him physically. But the news reports don't even hint that this happened.
It would also have been improper for Gates to interfere with an ongoing police investigation. I give Crowley the benefit of the doubt on this. If he still had questions in his own mind about the alleged break-in, it would be proper for him to stay until they were answered. But again, the news reports seem to say that Crowley had concluded there was no break-in, and that Gates had every right to be there, in his own home.
Should Crowley have then apologized, and then left? The apology question is irrelevant to me, although Gates certainly has a case for one. No, Crowley was wrong because he had passed the point where he had a legitimate professional reason to remain. Whether Gates was overreacting by calling the officer a racist did not give Crowley any reason to engage in an angry debate. Gates was probably getting angrier, and louder, every time Crowley answered him. At that point, it didn't matter who had the best talking (or yelling) points, the situation could only get worse.
And it did. But the arrest -- while improper in itself -- only resulted from Crowley's first mistake of not leaving when he had finished doing his job.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Every Firefighter Is A Supervisor
I think that any firefighter with a record of competence should get to be a supervisor. Why not? They've already shown the qualities needed for the job.
But wait. You say that taxpayers won't pay for everyone to be promoted? That you only need a certain number to give the orders, but that too many bosses would actually decrease public safety?
That's so obvious that it hurts to even say it. And yet, after the Supreme Court decision which restored promotions earned by white firefighters (and one Hispanic) after New Haven junked the exam because no blacks made the cut, it seems that the decision's critics want just such a system.
They may deny it, but what it will come down to is a system where no verifiable standard of merit will ever be used again. In that case, why not make everyone a supervisor? What could be more diverse than that?
At least, that's what seems to be the position of Lani Guinier and Susan Sturm in their NYTimes Op-Ed piece (7/11/09). They mention the undeniable flaws in the exam, which placed too much importance on national firefighting textbooks and study guides, and not enough on the skills that are actually needed in saving lives and property.
Of course, not being experienced firefighters themselves, they don't specify what these skills are, much less how to test for them. But the thrust of their argument exposes their real intention. They simply do not trust any system where merit can be tested and quantified as a measure of future performance. Read the article, and see if you find a substitute for using written exams in getting the promotional list. I wish they had given a single example.
I'm not defending written and multiple choice exams. You'll find a few outright groaners in any exam you look at. But the implications of their argument is clear: that no test of merit - i.e., a test where performance can be quantified and given a score without consideration of the identity of the testee - can be considered reliable. No written, oral, multiple-choice, physical task or combination thereof. And what do they cite as proof? The simple fact that no member of a particular race reached the promotional level.
But think about it when critics complain that it is the job of the government to expose the hidden bias that prevents us from achieving diversity. Will they accept any objective standard at all? Politicians certainly won't, which was why the New Haven civil service would not certify the exam before they could see the results. Think about that. The public is supposed to trust that their government consists of professionals who have the competence to lead them. Part of that competence is to select those who can provide the best service, and to make sure that those people get to provide it. I don't know what other standard for public service to use.
But wait. You say that taxpayers won't pay for everyone to be promoted? That you only need a certain number to give the orders, but that too many bosses would actually decrease public safety?
That's so obvious that it hurts to even say it. And yet, after the Supreme Court decision which restored promotions earned by white firefighters (and one Hispanic) after New Haven junked the exam because no blacks made the cut, it seems that the decision's critics want just such a system.
They may deny it, but what it will come down to is a system where no verifiable standard of merit will ever be used again. In that case, why not make everyone a supervisor? What could be more diverse than that?
At least, that's what seems to be the position of Lani Guinier and Susan Sturm in their NYTimes Op-Ed piece (7/11/09). They mention the undeniable flaws in the exam, which placed too much importance on national firefighting textbooks and study guides, and not enough on the skills that are actually needed in saving lives and property.
Of course, not being experienced firefighters themselves, they don't specify what these skills are, much less how to test for them. But the thrust of their argument exposes their real intention. They simply do not trust any system where merit can be tested and quantified as a measure of future performance. Read the article, and see if you find a substitute for using written exams in getting the promotional list. I wish they had given a single example.
I'm not defending written and multiple choice exams. You'll find a few outright groaners in any exam you look at. But the implications of their argument is clear: that no test of merit - i.e., a test where performance can be quantified and given a score without consideration of the identity of the testee - can be considered reliable. No written, oral, multiple-choice, physical task or combination thereof. And what do they cite as proof? The simple fact that no member of a particular race reached the promotional level.
But think about it when critics complain that it is the job of the government to expose the hidden bias that prevents us from achieving diversity. Will they accept any objective standard at all? Politicians certainly won't, which was why the New Haven civil service would not certify the exam before they could see the results. Think about that. The public is supposed to trust that their government consists of professionals who have the competence to lead them. Part of that competence is to select those who can provide the best service, and to make sure that those people get to provide it. I don't know what other standard for public service to use.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
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.
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.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
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.
"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.
Monday, May 11, 2009
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.
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.
Monday, April 27, 2009
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.
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.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
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.
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.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
No TARP for Mortgage Deadbeats
It's already too late to get indemnity for the TARP debacle, or at least the first part of it. There were no clearly defined rules for the use of the money, and probably billions have gone into the pockets of the very same goof balls who got us into this hole in the first place. So be it.
But now, President Obama is proposing a new influx of taxpayer money to keep people in their homes. Yes, the next bailout goes to homebuyers who face foreclosure because they can't pay their mortgages. This is supposed to be justified by the credit crisis because, it is argued, the banks won't issue new loans and mortgages until the housing market is stabilized.
Not good enough. As a taxpayer, I want attention paid to what I get out of this gift. It wasn't me who signed a loan contract in order to buy a house I couldn't afford. Nobody called me up to ask me to guarantee that mortgage. But now, all taxpayers are supposed to take over part of the mortgage payment so that another goof ball can enjoy the benefits of this crisis.
Obama needs to complete the circle. Provided that the government payments actually do the job instead of going down a big hole because the deadbeat defaults again ( a big IF), how does the taxpayer ever see the money again? Will the U.S. government get an equity share in the house that will be repaid upon the resale? If so -and I think that is likely to be in the law - I still don't think that's enough. I want a rebate on this one. The taxpayer should demand a full refund, including interest, for this bailout money. The President and Congress should remember that the economy is being saved by the very people who did not engage in the behavior that caused the crisis. We are never going to live in those homes. We are too busy paying our own mortgages, our debts AND the taxes that will go to bankers and deadbeats whose selfish, greedy and plain dumb habits have resulted in the most painful economic episode in this country since the Depression.
It's time our elected leaders demonstrated a genuine commitment to the real victims here. After all, we can only recover economic stability, and a sustained growth, if we continue the kind of behavior that is conducive to renewed prosperity. This includes honesty in contracts and a sensible balance between ambition and financial prudence. We should be rewarded for that.
But now, President Obama is proposing a new influx of taxpayer money to keep people in their homes. Yes, the next bailout goes to homebuyers who face foreclosure because they can't pay their mortgages. This is supposed to be justified by the credit crisis because, it is argued, the banks won't issue new loans and mortgages until the housing market is stabilized.
Not good enough. As a taxpayer, I want attention paid to what I get out of this gift. It wasn't me who signed a loan contract in order to buy a house I couldn't afford. Nobody called me up to ask me to guarantee that mortgage. But now, all taxpayers are supposed to take over part of the mortgage payment so that another goof ball can enjoy the benefits of this crisis.
Obama needs to complete the circle. Provided that the government payments actually do the job instead of going down a big hole because the deadbeat defaults again ( a big IF), how does the taxpayer ever see the money again? Will the U.S. government get an equity share in the house that will be repaid upon the resale? If so -and I think that is likely to be in the law - I still don't think that's enough. I want a rebate on this one. The taxpayer should demand a full refund, including interest, for this bailout money. The President and Congress should remember that the economy is being saved by the very people who did not engage in the behavior that caused the crisis. We are never going to live in those homes. We are too busy paying our own mortgages, our debts AND the taxes that will go to bankers and deadbeats whose selfish, greedy and plain dumb habits have resulted in the most painful economic episode in this country since the Depression.
It's time our elected leaders demonstrated a genuine commitment to the real victims here. After all, we can only recover economic stability, and a sustained growth, if we continue the kind of behavior that is conducive to renewed prosperity. This includes honesty in contracts and a sensible balance between ambition and financial prudence. We should be rewarded for that.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Financial Dinosaurs in Pain
And why shouldn't they be? How would you feel if a giant glacier was crushing you into amber?
The fact is, these big overleveraged banks are dying because of their own obsolescence. These banks encouraged and exploited an American economy that not only continued to make money, but HUGE amounts of money, even though our population had stopped living within its means long ago. Somehow, financial institutions were able to become even wealthier by selling the idea of American economic strength to their investors, even though our productivity had been falling for years.
But, optimist that I am, I think we're better than that. I think America is on the verge of an economic Renaissance because of the new opportunities available to future-oriented business entrepreneurs. Unless, of course, government intervention prevents us from competing.
Don't get me wrong. I am no free market dreamer who denies the importance of governmental involvement. In fact, the most important reasons for America's economic dominance was because government did subsidize new and developing industries. We've been doing this since even before the Louisiana Purchase in 1803. Why stop now?
But the latest plan to bail out the banking industry -- at least a day after Treasury Secretary Geithner's announcement -- looks like a loser. The one thing we know about dinosaurs is that they become extinct. That's what is happening now. The question is whether the American economy can only be saved by saving them.
I don't think so. What amazes me is the absolute certainty -- going back to the creation of the TARP Plan last October -- that the best way to avert a possible depression is to put the dinosaurs like Citigroup (my bank, by the way) into rehab therapy until they can start acting like healthy dinosaurs again.
What I'm getting at is this. This country has thousands of banks that are NOT dinosaurs. They are not leveraged up to their eyeballs in debt, and they continue to make loans to the American people. It's just that they were never capitalized enough to compete with the dinosaurs. Until today, that is. They have lessons for us on sound financial management that has allowed them to survive the coming Ice Age. Why haven't we been hearing from them?
Instead of just pouring taxpayer's money, and our future wealth, into the dying behemoths of the past, let's subsidize the leaner, smarter banks that are surviving. Instead, we've been introduced to huge new programs that totally ignore them.
I think the American people are losing out by ignoring them. I would like to see the Administration design a program that would guarantee the expansion of loan activity for banks that are continuing to make loans and do not need a bailout from the government. Why not get testimony and suggestions from them instead of the braindead CEOs testifying before Barney Frank and the House Retribution Committee?
There's still time to tap into this resource before pouring trillions more taxpayers' dollars into a prehistoric swamp, where it will disappear forever.
The fact is, these big overleveraged banks are dying because of their own obsolescence. These banks encouraged and exploited an American economy that not only continued to make money, but HUGE amounts of money, even though our population had stopped living within its means long ago. Somehow, financial institutions were able to become even wealthier by selling the idea of American economic strength to their investors, even though our productivity had been falling for years.
But, optimist that I am, I think we're better than that. I think America is on the verge of an economic Renaissance because of the new opportunities available to future-oriented business entrepreneurs. Unless, of course, government intervention prevents us from competing.
Don't get me wrong. I am no free market dreamer who denies the importance of governmental involvement. In fact, the most important reasons for America's economic dominance was because government did subsidize new and developing industries. We've been doing this since even before the Louisiana Purchase in 1803. Why stop now?
But the latest plan to bail out the banking industry -- at least a day after Treasury Secretary Geithner's announcement -- looks like a loser. The one thing we know about dinosaurs is that they become extinct. That's what is happening now. The question is whether the American economy can only be saved by saving them.
I don't think so. What amazes me is the absolute certainty -- going back to the creation of the TARP Plan last October -- that the best way to avert a possible depression is to put the dinosaurs like Citigroup (my bank, by the way) into rehab therapy until they can start acting like healthy dinosaurs again.
What I'm getting at is this. This country has thousands of banks that are NOT dinosaurs. They are not leveraged up to their eyeballs in debt, and they continue to make loans to the American people. It's just that they were never capitalized enough to compete with the dinosaurs. Until today, that is. They have lessons for us on sound financial management that has allowed them to survive the coming Ice Age. Why haven't we been hearing from them?
Instead of just pouring taxpayer's money, and our future wealth, into the dying behemoths of the past, let's subsidize the leaner, smarter banks that are surviving. Instead, we've been introduced to huge new programs that totally ignore them.
I think the American people are losing out by ignoring them. I would like to see the Administration design a program that would guarantee the expansion of loan activity for banks that are continuing to make loans and do not need a bailout from the government. Why not get testimony and suggestions from them instead of the braindead CEOs testifying before Barney Frank and the House Retribution Committee?
There's still time to tap into this resource before pouring trillions more taxpayers' dollars into a prehistoric swamp, where it will disappear forever.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
David Brooks' Anxiety
I can always count on the NYTimes columnist to come up with something provactive, and yesterday's piece was no exception. He was worried that American culture is moving toward the kind of "individualism" that reduces the sense of one's obligation to society - in this case its "institutions" - in favor of personal satisfaction. He cited a report from a Harvard faculty committee as evidence of this shift. The report advocated the value of challenging pre-existing "arrangements" from the institutions of society because they stand in the way of one's personal fulfillment.
Brooks feels that the primary commitment towards personal satisfaction, or, in other words, defining yourself by what you ask of life, is inferior to the life defined by what life asks of you. He mentions Hugh Heclo, a political scientist who promotes one's personal commitment to the values of institutions, such as the family, the school or community, as being the true source of America's strength.
Putting aside the question of which of these alleged opposites is better, the more intriguing question is why he thinks institutionalized thinking is losing ground. He mentions a recent decline in faith in society's institutions, not only in this country but worldwide. A cynicism has taken over that rests on the revelation of fraud and corruption by the power elites, and this undermines one's trust in established codes of conduct.
But even if this were true, where is the evidence that Americans are seeking refuge in a more individualistic philosophy? It is just as likely that the various institutions are in upheaval, and that this forebodes a conflict within the power hierarchies. When it's settled, we may find that Americans are continuing to find their identities in group affiliation, but that the institutions have been rearranged. This is a far cry from redefining oneself according to a personal code of values, as in a truly individualistic philosophy. Such movements have been around for decades - such as Ayn Rand's libertarianism, the Beatniks' revolt in the fifties, even the "do your own thing" gurus of the sixties - but they never for a moment challenged the dominance of mainstream American culture.
Finally, I must add that Brooks' use of the Harvard report as evidence of the "new individualism" is risible. The report sounds just like the blather that's come out of faculty committees everywhere for a hundred years. I don't think he can find a single Harvard student who pays any attention to it. The student is too busy hustling his or her Harvard degree for all it's worth in the career marketplace. Getting the best price for it demands institutionalized thinking of an Olympian discipline and dazzling nuance, and I see no signs that America has lost its appetite for its rewards.
Brooks feels that the primary commitment towards personal satisfaction, or, in other words, defining yourself by what you ask of life, is inferior to the life defined by what life asks of you. He mentions Hugh Heclo, a political scientist who promotes one's personal commitment to the values of institutions, such as the family, the school or community, as being the true source of America's strength.
Putting aside the question of which of these alleged opposites is better, the more intriguing question is why he thinks institutionalized thinking is losing ground. He mentions a recent decline in faith in society's institutions, not only in this country but worldwide. A cynicism has taken over that rests on the revelation of fraud and corruption by the power elites, and this undermines one's trust in established codes of conduct.
But even if this were true, where is the evidence that Americans are seeking refuge in a more individualistic philosophy? It is just as likely that the various institutions are in upheaval, and that this forebodes a conflict within the power hierarchies. When it's settled, we may find that Americans are continuing to find their identities in group affiliation, but that the institutions have been rearranged. This is a far cry from redefining oneself according to a personal code of values, as in a truly individualistic philosophy. Such movements have been around for decades - such as Ayn Rand's libertarianism, the Beatniks' revolt in the fifties, even the "do your own thing" gurus of the sixties - but they never for a moment challenged the dominance of mainstream American culture.
Finally, I must add that Brooks' use of the Harvard report as evidence of the "new individualism" is risible. The report sounds just like the blather that's come out of faculty committees everywhere for a hundred years. I don't think he can find a single Harvard student who pays any attention to it. The student is too busy hustling his or her Harvard degree for all it's worth in the career marketplace. Getting the best price for it demands institutionalized thinking of an Olympian discipline and dazzling nuance, and I see no signs that America has lost its appetite for its rewards.
Sunday, January 4, 2009
Watching TV News is S-O-O-O Last Century
Tonight I turned on the news, but I turned off the set almost immediately. It was ABC evening news - but that's not important. What's important is that they'd just finished a story about Bill Richardson, who'd been nominated as Commerce Secretary, and the screen only read: "He's out!"
I wanted to know more, but they'd already moved on to the next story. There was a crawl on the bottom of the screen, but it was on yet another story. I turned to CNN, then MSNBC, but they didn't have the Richardson story either. It was frustrating. It seems that six P.M. is standardized time for TV news, and this was the lead story. I would have to keep flipping to other news programs, or else wait for CNN headline news to start the loop again.
But I went a different route, one that was not available before. I went online to CNN and the full story was waiting for me. I learned that Richardson pulled out because there's a federal grand jury investigating his campaign finances. An indictment was possible. No doubt he was pressured to withdraw so as not to taint Obama's new cabinet.
I don't know if I'll ever catch up to the pace of the internet today, but I have learned that the old ways are disappearing fast. I'm a baby boomer. Most internet users today are way ahead of me. They're not dragging the old media, like TV anchored news programs, behind them like iron chains. I'm used to the time when you sat on the couch and watched the news drip, drip, drip out of the anchor's lips. If you missed part of a story, too bad. You'll catch it on the next news show. But you'd probably have forgotten it by then.
This internet generation may never have that experience. You can find the latest news in seconds from any number of sites. No waiting period. The news is already there, and it's waiting for you.
So what's the next step? Will our computers start to think? Will they become frustrated that we're too slow for them? Maybe my next one will haul my body in front of the screen and hold me hostage until it's finished telling me the news.
I think we're headed in that direction.
I wanted to know more, but they'd already moved on to the next story. There was a crawl on the bottom of the screen, but it was on yet another story. I turned to CNN, then MSNBC, but they didn't have the Richardson story either. It was frustrating. It seems that six P.M. is standardized time for TV news, and this was the lead story. I would have to keep flipping to other news programs, or else wait for CNN headline news to start the loop again.
But I went a different route, one that was not available before. I went online to CNN and the full story was waiting for me. I learned that Richardson pulled out because there's a federal grand jury investigating his campaign finances. An indictment was possible. No doubt he was pressured to withdraw so as not to taint Obama's new cabinet.
I don't know if I'll ever catch up to the pace of the internet today, but I have learned that the old ways are disappearing fast. I'm a baby boomer. Most internet users today are way ahead of me. They're not dragging the old media, like TV anchored news programs, behind them like iron chains. I'm used to the time when you sat on the couch and watched the news drip, drip, drip out of the anchor's lips. If you missed part of a story, too bad. You'll catch it on the next news show. But you'd probably have forgotten it by then.
This internet generation may never have that experience. You can find the latest news in seconds from any number of sites. No waiting period. The news is already there, and it's waiting for you.
So what's the next step? Will our computers start to think? Will they become frustrated that we're too slow for them? Maybe my next one will haul my body in front of the screen and hold me hostage until it's finished telling me the news.
I think we're headed in that direction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)