I understand there is a big speculation going on as to who will play the lead female part in the movie Fifty Shades of Gray from the book of the same name. Admittedly I have not read said book but I’ve heard while titillating it isn’t much of a book. So, why such fascination? Why do we use sex to sell everything from lipstick to hubcaps, to groceries?
Why don’t we have a book and a movie titled Sixty Shades of Blue? You know, true blue, the color of the sky and
pretty eyes, and generally nice stuff. Can you imagine writing a whole book on
just good things about a person or persons? Even the Bible or the Koran or the
Bhagavad Gita can’t do that.
You would think that farmer’s daughters jokes would be wholesome
reflecting a good pastoral life of high values, but they aren’t are they?
Why are we willing to spend millions of dollars to attend
professional sports events and ignore social issues or get enough exercise? To
me the higher the level of sports the worse and more whacked out of proportion
the sport becomes. Little league is ten times more interesting to watch and
provides more entertainment and fun than big leaguers any day of the week. But
that just may be me. Why aren’t football and hockey banned? Aren't games supposed to be fun?
Why is it that British television is so much better than American
TV? We get hundreds of channels on cable TV but can only find one night a week
where we can find anything we like to watch. Fortunately we get Netflix and
what wonderful mystery series such as: Midsomer Murder; Inspector Lewis; Prime
Suspect and many more. The funniest program on TV I’ve ever seen is one we are
watching right now – Doc Martin.
Then there are the wonderful Upstairs Downstairs and current Downton Abbey.
Perhaps it is as friends of ours daughter said the other day, “they develop
their characters more.”
Why does the cat insist on walking in front of the monitor while
I’m trying to type this blog?
Why do folk ride roller coasters, jump of bridges on bungee cords,
climb buildings with no safety equipment and do other death defying acts?
Why do folk think it is okay for 20 to 25% of the country to live
in poverty while .01 percent have half the wealth of the country? Why do we
have the most expensive health care system in the world but not the best
system?
Why do people complain about politicians and then keep electing the
same ones who do not reflect their best interest? Why does the Tea Party know
nothing about the original Tea Party? Why does education cost so much when it
puts us behind other countries? Why do folk think any one individual is any
more important than another individual?
How do bumblebees fly or the Harley Davidson motorcycle run when
they defy the science that says they can’t? Why don’t we study ants and bees
more to understand efficient societies?
Why do people put hot stuff on food, or sauces or anything else
that keeps them from tasting like the original food? Why is our nation obese?
Why does everyone have to have an automobile instead of using public
transportation? Why is our infrastructure a mess? Why does a housespouse need a
Hummer to go to the grocery store? Why do women complain about men not putting the toilet seat down when they don't put toilet lid down?
Why do we teach our babies to be bigots? Why does our country
incarcerate more people than any other country per capita? Why do we not take
global warming seriously but get all excited about pro wrestling?
Why do most of us say we believe in religion or spirituality and
then ignore those religious teachings and spend most of our time in secular
pursuits? Why are we surprised when leaders act like human beings and mess up?
Why did the philosophy student who wrote on his final exam to the
question “Why?” “Why not.” Get an A.
Why do birds sing? Can’t they afford mpg players?
BBC: why? good question. Perhaps the Brits have more taste in TV. Doc Martin- I watched the first epsisode, perplexed and nonplussed...and became hooked. Tea Party? I am reading a book on the Revolution which details much much more than
ReplyDeletesome disgrutled sailers dressing up like Indians
and throwing crates of tea into Boston harbor.
"Why do folk think it is okay for 20 to 25% of the country to live in poverty while .01 percent have half the wealth of the country? "
ReplyDeleteI don't think it is, and it is pretty bad that so much of our tax money goes to the government, and they end up enriching themselves instead, and not ending poverty. The government already has the resources to do this, so there is no need to mention the .01%, or the idea of the government stealing even more from us so they can enrich themselves even more and still leave the poverty problem untouched.
Also, there is something off in the math. From the Wikipedia article on wealth inequality:
ReplyDelete"In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 34.6% of the country's total wealth"
Mathematically, it is simply impossible for the richest 0.01% to control nearly twice as much wealth as the richest 1.00%. I am guessing it is just a typo, in which case we just move on...
Finallly, lets look at the group that really has its hand in the cookie jar, that are the real problem here. The people in the federal government who are taking from us and claiming it is to help the poor. More and more of them are getting quite rich doing so: overpaid Federal workers getting richer and richer during a period when the poverty rate got worse. And Obama found it to be a high priority earlier this year to give this group of people rich at taxpayer expense an $11 billion welfare check..
ReplyDeleteAs with the tens of billions of waste in corporate welfare, this pure waste in welfare to rich federal workers is supported by Democrats and opposed by Republicans.
How do we determine whether someone is overpaid, given that
ReplyDeletethe many millions CEOs (and many other private sector execs) make is considered by some to be equitable?
The data is instructive:
ReplyDelete1962 Us population 186.5 million/2.485 Federal workers
1988 244.5 million/3.1 million
2013 313.9 million/2.2 million
Thissite has an interactive yearly graph of the ratio of various federal sector employment per growing capita, and it appears the the fed civilian workforce has shrunk in almost all areas per capita (and overall). Except for our good friends the lawyers, who maintain their 36,000, (and no doubt make over $100,000) I would join the
Republicans in removing the lawyers. ..from congress as well.
That is very instructive data: If we didn't grossly overpay federal workers, we could hire twice as many and greatly improve services... something which would positively impact teh poor and needy.
ReplyDelete"How do we determine whether someone is overpaid,"
Easy. If they will work for less money, then any amount paid over it is mad money and pure waste. The CEO inclusion in your question is irrelevant, and for the shareholders and the board that represents them to determine.
If CEO pay is irrelevant, then any and all pay is irrelevant. Consider that one CEO makes as much as 300 of his workers, they could 'greatly improve their operations', even moreso than gov't. Boards are clubs, same people on
ReplyDeletevarious boards..in the pocket of the CEO. The only way shareholders (the less than 50% ownership) have a say is to dump their shares....and more of them should be doing that.
IMO, the problem began with the MBA degree, the focus on the next quarter, and the belief that a corporation's sole
function is to generate shareholder cash, that customers, community and workers are inconveniences. That is only one
reason why big business cannot and does not provide jobs, services and customer value as well as small businesses.
When a board finally gets around to firing a CEO, it is after the mismanagement damage has been done...and the poor
great leader (a former ruling elite) is gently ushered out the door with a $50 million parachute. In my town, there
is a health insurance office, 4 floors, parking garage and
many hundred cubicle workers. Across the street is the social security office: three rooms and six workers, yet incredibly, folks continue to worship private sector efficiency. Been there, seen that...
It doesn't work that way, BB. If a company thinks and acts like customers are irrelevant, no one will buy its products and services. If a company thinks workers are irrelevant, no-one will want to work there. The thing that corrupts this principle is corporate welfare from the government, and regulatory intervention which makes the companies monopolies, and thus unaccountable.
DeleteNow if I get this right dmarks would bring back sweatshops with unlimited working hours, lousy working conditions with dim lights and lots of asbestos around, child labor, products that can cause damage to the consumers. Then he would do away with government, privatize the highways, schools, get rid of police and firefighters, get rid of social security and Medicare, and all assistance programs, etc. Just let the poor people starve as they are without value.
ReplyDeleteIn this world if you are starving today you have the choice of not working for a company that won’t pay you what you want. If you have only one choice of a product you won’t buy it because you don’t like it. Thee would be no art as no one would support it.
Some people are worth more than others because they born that way. Long term thinking would be a lost art because it is just the immediate bottom line that is important. There will be no government workers because they are all lazy and provide no service to the public.
We might as well buy all our products from overseas wherever the wages are the cheapest and we can get the biggest bang for our buck, even if we destroy ourselves in the long run.
All data that does not agree with my particular ideology is wrong.
I get it. Let’s have a king, and a few earls and dukes, and whatever and lots of peasants like the good old days when a few of privilege could determine the welfare of the majority.
I can even find biblical arguments to support this: the vineyard owner who kept hiring people at various times during the day and then paid them all the same. Why? Because it was his money. That will work if you ignore the owner represents God, and the story is about mercy rather than the value of work and people.
The MBA...hmmm. I know a few years ago they started teaching business ethics in business school realizing they were producing folk who only thought of the bottom line and were ethical amoral in terms of business. Ah, those instructors must have been cut from the budget or just ignored.
ReplyDeleteAs for me I rather have Plato's philosopher kings running the country, the idea of folk trained to do what they do seems like such a good idea. Ergo there is no chance that will happen.
We used to kid around with fresh MBAs. Even they agreed that
ReplyDeleteBusiness Ethics is a classical oxymoron.
Hugh said: "Now if I get this right..."
ReplyDeleteYou don't get any of that right. You might have me confused with someone else. I oppose each and every one of the things you seem to think I have spoken in favor of. Every single one.
"Then he would do away with government"
Another one you made up entirely. In fact, it directly contradicts what I have said many times.
"privatize the highways, schools"
This I might support, as I am not a reactionary and am open to good new ideas.
"get rid of police and firefighters"
More pure imagination on your part.
"get rid of social security and Medicare"
Now I wonder if you have been hitting the bottle early this morning. This directly contradicts what I have said in the past, when I have favored keeping these programs, but means testing them, so they aren't handouts to the rich anymore.
"and all assistance programs, etc."
I have spoken strongly in favor of assistance to the needy. Several times.
"Just let the poor people starve as they are without value."
Your argument, not mine.
"In this world if you are starving today you have the choice of not working for a company that won’t pay you what you want."
This sentence is poorly worded, so it is not clear what you are saying.
"If you have only one choice of a product you won’t buy it because you don’t like it. Thee would be no art as no one would support it."
Perhaps in a world you favor. But I oppose monopolies.
"There will be no government workers because they are all lazy and provide no service to the public."
No, I would prefer there be plenty, fairly paid, and doing a good job.
"We might as well buy all our products from overseas wherever the wages are the cheapest and we can get the biggest bang for our buck"
Now that would be a good idea: get the best products. However, such a world where it is true that only overseas products are best simply does not exist. Unlike you, I have faith in the ability of the American worker to compete on a level playing field, And he or she does, which is why US made products are such a huge part of our economy.
"even if we destroy ourselves in the long run."
The only thing that would destroy us is fascist limitations on free trade.
"All data that does not agree with my particular ideology is wrong."
Seems to fit you perfectly.
"I get it. Let’s have a king, and a few earls and dukes, and whatever and lots of peasants like the good old days when a few of privilege could determine the welfare of the majority."
The opposition to this situation is exacty why I oppose those who rule over us having too much power and control. Your statement, which you supposedly think is extreme, is lot close to your views than it is to mine. as big government, the hardline policies of the Left, are all about the few of privilege determining the welfare of the majority.
"...vineyard owner..."
Kind of a silly example to compare to business, because in it, the employer pays people who do a lousy job the same as those who do a good job. It might be the way you want to run a business, but government has no business forcing a business to operate this way.
"and the story is about mercy rather than the value of work and people."
Paying people fairly for the real value of their work isnt about the worth of people at all.
Business: gotta love it. My very favorite bank pays their CEO for the real
ReplyDeletevalue of his work. Which involves brilliant financial
planning and strategy-like repossessing a paid off home
TWICE .
Ah yes, one of those big banks which were forced to make bad loans by ridiculous CRA and related policies.
ReplyDeleteThen, in a move opposed by most Republicans and supported by most Democrats, the Federal Government gave this bank $25 billion...
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-4788018.html
...in corporate welfare handout money, with few strings attached. Bad behavior encouraged by Federal regulation, and rewarded with almost record level corporate welfare gifts. No surprise the bank keeps behaving badly.
Thanks for providing an example that strongly proves how bad the Federal meddling in such matters is; matters that would have been all in all much better if it had been left to the free market.
"matters that would have been all in all much better if it had been left to the free market."
DeleteAbsolutely: Wells-Fargo is a poster boy for what is wrong with big banking. Their disappearance would find me cheering. Blaming their clear incompetence on the gov't seems a stretch, although it exonerates their overpaid CEO. (oops,
I meant 'adequately compensated)
Considering how they funneled the corporate welfare money into CEO pay, the free market was not at play there. There's a good case for overpay.
DeleteThe government DID have a large role in this. Fannie and Freddie and the CRA encouraged banks to make the bad loans. Forced incompentant behavior. And then the government rewarded Wells-Fargo for behaving badly by giving them a $25 billion dollar gift.
That's a hell of an incentive, you know.
Also, in regards to this: "In my town, there
ReplyDeleteis a health insurance office, 4 floors, parking garage and
many hundred cubicle workers. Across the street is the social security office: three rooms and six workers, yet incredibly, folks continue to worship private sector efficiency. Been there, seen that"
There are regulations and sweetheart deals with give special protection to certain insurance companies, provide corporate welfare, and block competition. Obamacare is not helpful to this situation at all: as it reduces competition, forces citizens to come to these companies and give them lots of money for products they don't need, and otherwise corrupts the process.
I'd be curious which insurance company it is.
You probably have never heard of them . They were pretty good, I had them for health, but a bigger corporation bought my corporation and the bigger corporation had a guy on the board that also was on CIGNAs board and...
DeleteTheir megaplex and the SS office predated Obama
and Obamacare...and I agree..single payer is the
only way to go.
Single payer is the worst way to go. We need more players, not fewer. It is fascism, pure and simple, and meets an important part of the definition (involving centralization and regimentation of the economy).
ReplyDeleteConsidering that this was a rather light piece dealing with human inconsistency it certainly has generated a lot of response. dmarks if I misrepresent you one reason for that is it is very hard to figure out where you are coming from. Bit and bit parsing is an odd way of debate and generally missess the point. Why don't you try to describe your political beliefs in a simple manner leaving out the inflammatory language, so we can better understand your position.
ReplyDeleteFacism: making up stories and invading countries in the name of preemption. Stock in trade for Hitler, Mussolini,
ReplyDeleteTojo, etc.