Wild Ducks Flying Backward is a collection of previously published essays gathered together in book form. Yeah … I know, this never bodes well. Usuall...moreWild Ducks Flying Backward is a collection of previously published essays gathered together in book form. Yeah … I know, this never bodes well. Usually these types of collections consist of dog fur, dried food scraps and coffee grounds swept into the dust pan and dumped between a book cover (usually as a blatant attempt to wring some extra cash off of the name recognition of the author). Unfortunately, this book is no exception, but I will say that strewn among the empty milk cartons, egg shells and yard scraps are a few gems worth keeping.
I’ve read very little by Robbins, but his writing has a hippy / sensualist vibe that can be amusing at times and a little creepy at others. To give one example, his description of a tomato sandwich made with white bread was so over the top I wasn’t sure if he was going to eat it or stuff it down his pants and masturbate with it.
Robbins a good writer though, and always ready with a clever turn of phrase. (less)
The Medium is the Massage was first published in 1967 and consists of short blurbs centered around the influence of technology on culture interspersed...moreThe Medium is the Massage was first published in 1967 and consists of short blurbs centered around the influence of technology on culture interspersed with images that were constructed by graphic designer Quentin Fiore. The title is a play on McLuhan’s phrase “the medium is the message”, which conveys his idea that the means of communication determines the manner in which we think. For example he suggests that print, in which one word follows another, leads to linear thinking and individualism (since reading is a activity done alone). While television, with its instantaneous transmission of signals from around the world leads to global, less individualized thought.
I think there’s some truth to this idea, though perhaps its influence is not as powerful as McLuhan suggests. For example, there is some indication that the digital revolution currently underway is causing people to think across academic disciplines in a more integrative way but that this comes at the expense of a deeper understanding of specific subjects (leading one author to dub the internet “the shallows”).
Although the book written almost 50 years ago when television was the revolutionary new medium, much of what McLuhan has to say still holds up. Digital communications are allowing us to become ever more connected and interdependent. This is and will continue to have a profound influence on our entertainment, jobs, privacy, culture, education and politics. (less)
The Future isn’t so much about the future as it is an analysis of the trends taking place today (which you will not be surprised to learn are economic...moreThe Future isn’t so much about the future as it is an analysis of the trends taking place today (which you will not be surprised to learn are economic, geo-political, social, environmental and technological) that will influence on the future.
Al Gore is an astute individual. He has the ability to analyze global trends from a wide variety of disciplines and use them to gain insight into events in the US and around the world. And he does so in the professorial, reasoned manner he made famous in his earlier books and in An Inconvenient Truth. While fact-dense, the information is presented in a logical manner that is easy to understand.
Though Gore is a liberal the book is non-partisan, largely taking its conclusions from scientific evidence and an impartial observation of the facts (the exception being, in my opinion, his opposition to genetic engineering, which holds immense potential to alleviate suffering). Unfortunately, the right will dismiss many of the books conclusions, such as those regarding the damaging effects of income inequality, the degraded nature of democracy in the US due to the political influence of moneyed interests, the effects of hyper-consumerism on the environment, and of course … global warming, as partisan simply because of the background of the author. Yet it is this closed-minded, knee-jerk, dismissal of evidence that has led to the breakdown of democracy and that leaves the country incapable of addressing its most pressing problems. Theoretically this could be addressed at the ballot box, but unfortunately (and deliberately) the US lacks the informed citizenry that could make this change a reality.
On the whole, the book is very good and contains a great deal of excellent information. I would especially like to highlight the fact that Gore acknowledges the problems of population growth, an issue many environmentalists and people on the left are loath to take on, despite the fact that virtually every single environmental problem is exacerbated by high fertility rates. A few things could be improved, however, and in the spirit of constructive criticism, I offer the following: 1. Gore, like most liberal intellectuals, believes that it is possible to change someone’s mind by demonstrating through facts and reasoned argument that his position is correct. He feels that evidence and logic, presented in a step-wise fashion leading to an incontrovertible conclusion will, by extension, prove the point and change hearts and minds. If only this were so. The problem is that psychological studies have shown it just doesn’t work that way … particularly when it comes to the republican predisposition for motivated reasoning (see the The Republican Brain by Chris Mooney or Think Like an Elephant by George Lakeoff). Gore would be a better communicator if he did a better job framing his conclusions in ways that resonate with human ideals and emotions. 2. The book is a litany of depressing news (fishery die-offs, runaway population growth, global warming, population displacement, desertification, pandemics, sea level rise, water shortages, topsoil erosion, pollution, disease, death and destruction). Leaders need to inspire as well as educate. Inspiration is hard to come if you first submerge your readers in a pit of despair. 3. While long on explanation, the book is relatively light on solutions. Yes … it would help if the accounting practices used to compute GDP took such things as environmental degradation, resource depletion, pollution, and poverty into account, but this proposal is not enough. It needs to be accompanied by a detailed plan with concrete goals that outline a clear path for putting the concept into practice. Gore proposed this same notion back in 1992 in his book Earth in the Balance and after two decades it remains no closer to realization. (less)
In Drift, author and television commentator Rachel Maddow examines several trends within the US military in recent decades: 1) The failure of the presi...moreIn Drift, author and television commentator Rachel Maddow examines several trends within the US military in recent decades: 1) The failure of the president to obtain congressional approval before going to war. 2) The growth in privatization of military services. 3) The lack of public debate and influence regarding military engagements and spending.
Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution states that the "Congress shall have power to ... declare War". The country’s founders wisely understood that kings, dictators and tyrants have a proclivity for war as a means of conquest and personal aggrandizement but that a more deliberative body would be less inclined to foolishly squander troops and gold. The last time Congress passed joint resolutions declaring that a "state of war" existed was on June 5, 1942. Yet the executive branch continues to embroil the country in military conflicts both large and small.
A large all-volunteer army is expensive to maintain during peace-time, so readiness is maintained through the part-time forces of the army reserve and national guard. This has proven to be a check against large commitment of troops in the past because of the tremendous social upheaval created when these reservists are pulled from work and away from their families. In addition, if the public is to make these sacrifices it (reasonably) wants to be assured that the scope and goals of the engagement are worth the price. Maddow argues that the rise of private contractors to fill the duties once held by active military personnel has allowed the country to fight wars with smaller military forces, avoiding the shared sacrifices (and public debates) of the past.
Drift largely consists of a history of military engagements spanning the timeframe between the Reagan and Obama presidencies. I found the book to be surprisingly lacking in focus, given Maddow’s typically crisp style of reporting. The text “drifts” from a fairly dry recounting of our engagements around the world including the invasion of Grenada, Iran – Contra, the Persian Gulf War, the Bosnian War, the Iraq War and War in Afghanistan to a discussion of privatization, to a description of our aging nuclear arsenal making points rather vaguely along the way. The subject could have been more effectively covered by removing non-essential filler and placing more emphasis on the book’s stated themes.
There are trade-offs involved with vesting the country’s war powers in a single individual. An individual could theoretically act more quickly and decisively allowing the country to respond swiftly to an imminent threat to ourselves or an ally. At the same time, there are cases where careful deliberation before making a decision as serious as taking the country to war, is prudent. Maddow believes (and I agree) that it the decision to go to war should not be an easy one, and that it should involve the will of the entire country, not merely the whims of a unitary executive. The collapse of the Soviet Union was to have brought the US a “peace dividend” as we redirected resources away from arms to social programs and/or a decrease in taxation rates. The so-called war on terror has reversed this trend and, as we enter our 11th year in Afghanistan, perpetual war (undeclared by Congress and largely unnoticed by the general public) appears to have become the norm. (less)
Lost At Sea is a collection of essays that had previously been published elsewhere, compiled into a single book. Although the topics are diverse, the...moreLost At Sea is a collection of essays that had previously been published elsewhere, compiled into a single book. Although the topics are diverse, the unifying theme of the subject matter is a familiar one for Ronson … quirky topics and individuals on society’s fringe, as is the writing style. Ronson appears to have found a literary formula that works for him and shows no signs of deviating from it. For me, it’s engaging and largely enjoyable. I found the best essays to be those that touched on personal debt leading up to the 2008 financial crisis. These stories illustrate in a personal way the unethical predatory behavior of financial institutions in the era of deregulation.
Because the stories appear to have been originally written for British publications, several of the people and topics will be unfamiliar to a US audience. Readers will probably find that stories involving individuals they’ve never heard of (such as Robbie Williams, or Nicky Gumbel, or Ray Gosling and others) simply aren’t as interesting as they could have been had they involved a familiar individual. (less)
Plutocrats might be described as intelligent, highly educated, self-made, go-getters who have worked hard, innovated and successfully built businesses...morePlutocrats might be described as intelligent, highly educated, self-made, go-getters who have worked hard, innovated and successfully built businesses that create jobs, and benefit the economy. Their products enrich society and create technologies that allow the citizens of third world nations to work their way out of poverty and fashion better lives for themselves and their families. These individuals are compensated well, but fairly, for their achievements. They then use their millions (or billions in some cases) for philanthropic purposes, giving back to the society that allowed them to succeed by creating novel solutions based on their business acumen to solve the world’s many ills.
Conversely, many see them as manipulative, self-serving strivers who finance political campaigns in an effort to rig the system in their favor. By weakening regulations intended to protect investors and the environment they pose tremendous risk the public and by obtaining lucrative tax breaks they shift the tax burden to those least able to afford it. They are the too-big-to-fail robber barons who privatize profits while socializing losses and liabilities, who use accounting tricks to bolster short term gains that enable them to reap huge bonuses and stock option grants even as their company’s performance falters and employee’s wages stagnate (assuming the working class hasn’t already been downsized). They take huge risks with leveraged capital, reaping the rewards as the bubble grows and getting bailed out when it bursts. They shift jobs to overseas sweatshops creating a permanent indentured class while driving down wages in the US.
In Plutocrats: The Rise of the New Global Super-Rich and the Fall of Everyone Chrystia Freeland looks at the ultra-rich, their personalities, character traits, lifestyles and business. Income inequality has grown significantly since the 1970s. With the US now being the most unequal of the developed nations. This comes despite the fact that productivity has steadily increased, with more goods and services being produced with less labor than ever. When less people produce more goods, you’d expect there to be more money for everyone as profits are shared among fewer individuals. But this is not what is happening. Instead the top 1% are taking a disproportionate share of the pie leaving little left for the rest of society. In fact between 1979 and 2007 the top 1% saw average income gains of 275% vs. just 40% for those in the middle class. We are increasingly becoming a winner-take-all society.
With regards to the book itself, I found it to be a lackluster effort. Freeland relates an endless series of anecdotes but uses them to draw only timid conclusions regarding the broader societal implications of income inequality. In fact, much of the book reads like an extremely dull episode of Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous (except that these business tycoons aren’t particularly famous). Secondly, one is left with the impression that she conducted the bulk of her research (at least that which didn't involve a lunch date) using the Google, since the book quite closely follows the format and information summarized much more concisely at Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_i...(less)
The 20th century has been characterized by four developments of great importance: the growth of political democracy, the growth of online democracy, t...moreThe 20th century has been characterized by four developments of great importance: the growth of political democracy, the growth of online democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy.
- Alex Carey
As former Vice President of corporate communications at CIGNA as well as a former journalist, Wendell Potter is in a unique position to expose the practices of the medical insurance industry and the work that they’ve done to influence the public and lawmakers to prevent legislation that would hurt corporate profits. This behavior might be warranted if the U.S. health care system provided the best care in the world at the lowest cost, but in fact the U.S. is ranked 37th overall by the World Health Association, we’re 34th in terms of infant mortality, and 38th in terms of life expectancy. It is also more expensive than any other developed country.
As a country that prides itself on its exceptionalism, why do we settle for such lousy and costly healthcare? Answer: Because we don’t want government intervening in our crappy coverage … we’d prefer that free market driven, private, for-profit corporations, and health care executives who pull in seven or even eight figure salaries be the ones to deny doctor recommended medical procedures instead. It’s the American way, and uniquely so in the developed world.
In Deadly Spin Potter outlines the ways in which insurance companies deny care, raise premiums, cancel policies of the sick and use their massive profits to fund a public relations machine to convince us that we have the best healthcare in the world despite the available evidence. And by every measure they’ve been remarkably successful at sowing confusion and misinformation. Thus we have: - A doctor’s reasonable discussions with their patient about personal end of life decisions is turned into rants about “death panels”. - The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) which ensures affordable private health care coverage for millions of Americans is billed as “a government takeover of healthcare” (a focus group tested phrase that has been used again and again to thwart reforms). - Coordinated attacks to discredit and demonize Michael Moore’s movie “Sicko”, which dared to compare the highly profitable American health care industry to that in other nations. - Astro-turf organizations featuring angry mobs of people in tricorn hats with tea bags hanging from all three corners with signs reading “Keep the guvmint out of my medicare”. It would almost be funny, except for the fact that denial of care has real world implications including suffering and death.
Potter also describes more generally how PR is used to influence the national dialog and manufacture consent. PR messaging is all around us, but many fail to recognize it as such and wind up parroting advertising agency-created, market research-driven talking points with the true sincerity of their most deeply held beliefs, never realizing that they are unwitting water carriers of moneyed interests.
Ask yourself … who stands to gain from global warming denial, repeal of the Affordable Care Act, less regulation, smaller government, and tort reform to reduce corporate liability? Who stands to lose from a patient’s bill of rights, environmental protections, equal pay for women, and universal healthcare? Republicans and corporations want smaller government for the same reason criminals want fewer police. The job of PR firms is to convince you that fewer police are in your best interest, and time and again the chumps echo the call. (less)
The first thing you should know, is that Great American Hypocrites came out in the run-up to the 2008 presidential election so the material is a bit d...moreThe first thing you should know, is that Great American Hypocrites came out in the run-up to the 2008 presidential election so the material is a bit dated. The second thing is that, you’re probably already aware of the rank hypocrisy exhibited by our political leaders. Thus you have: - Draft dodging, chicken hawks who portray their veteran opponents as weak and fearful. - Serial womanizers with a string of broken marriages who espouse ‘family values’. - Small government advocates who want the state to intrude on personal medical decisions and who push for broad expansion of surveillance powers. Nothing much has changed in the intervening 4 years and politicians and pundits continue to say whatever suits the political expediency of the moment, heedless of whether it contradicts earlier held views.
While Greenwald does a good job documenting numerous cases of hypocrisy in the book, he fails to draw any larger meaning from these events making this a screed that was once timely, but has since grown a bit stale. He also decries the politics of personal attacks in a book that consists largely of ... wait for it ... personal attacks.
As dishonest and appalling as this hypocrisy can be, it is really a symptom of the radicalization of the republican party into an ever more extreme right-wing regime bent on permanent and unopposed power. Since Goldwater lost his bid for the presidency, they’ve steadily moved rightwards, purging the moderate influences within the party. Along with this shift, their rhetoric has become more heated, polarizing and extreme.
Some are predicting that the right will pull back from the brink should Romney lose the election in a few weeks. But these individuals have not learned anything from the past 40 years. Romney’s loss will be blamed on the fact that he wasn’t “severely” conservative enough and the radicalization will intensify, and the party will become ever more theocratic and plutocratic ... to the detriment of the country. (less)
Klosterman seem like a bit of a Gen X slacker type who appears to have the same fascination with popular culture that you’d expect from any 14 year ol...moreKlosterman seem like a bit of a Gen X slacker type who appears to have the same fascination with popular culture that you’d expect from any 14 year old girl. In other words, he's enthralled with silly, trivial, crap.
On the positive side, Klosterman approaches pop culture with the wry irony of a philosophy major seriously discussing the metaphysical implications of the Desperate Housewives. The essays are random, largely pointless, but amusing and often quite funny. On the downside, Klosterman takes himself a bit too seriously at times, attempting to forcibly extract meaning from nonsense. The essays would also probably have benefited from an earlier reading (they were first published in the early 2000’s) since, by nature, pop culture is topical. A decade later the subject matter has become a bit stale. (less)
There’s a general feeling in the US that our political process is broken. The two parties seem more interested in partisan infighting and political ga...moreThere’s a general feeling in the US that our political process is broken. The two parties seem more interested in partisan infighting and political gamesmanship than solving the nation’s problems. In It's Even Worse Than It Looks Mann and Ornstein provide clear evidence that congress is, indeed, completely dysfunctional and in the process document exactly why this is the case.
Before getting into the content of the book let me first point out that the author’s analysis is non-partisan. Mann works at the slightly left-of-center Brookings Institute, and Ornstein for the neo-conservative American Enterprise Institute. Taken together, the authors do a good job providing a balanced view of the political landscape, drawing their conclusions from an analysis of the facts at hand. While they do level the blame almost entirely on the antics of one specific party, they do so because the evidence clearly indicates that this is the case, not because of any preconceived bias.
What they find is that, while the Democrat’s positions have remained largely unchanged as a group over the past few decades, the Republicans, driven in large part by the tea-party and their authoritarian world-view of ideological purity, have radically shifted to the right. In this shift, the Republicans have abandoned compromise as a means to achieve policy solutions and have shown themselves willing to damage the country to achieve their self-serving political ends. This is something new in American politics. We’ve never faced an incalcitrant party determined to sabotage the very institutions of which they themselves are a part.
Whether taking the US to the brink of financial default, holding up aid to victims of Hurricane Irene, blocking legislation with unanimous bi-partisan support, or reversing previously held positions and dropping support for legislation they themselves proposed, Republicans appear to be willing to sink to any depth if by doing so a point could be scored, or an insult inflicted. They then (seemingly without irony) point to the very dysfunction that they’ve actively created as evidence of government’s inability to get things done. Unfortunately, the country’s founders did not foresee that the mechanisms of our form of representative democracy with its balance of powers could be used against itself by a minority of ideological hostage-takers. In fact, the mechanism used (the filibuster) is an administrative trick that evolved over time and was never part of the constitution.
Mann and Ornstein then go on to provide practical solutions for restoring balance to the government. Their ideas focus on increasing the number of people who turn out to vote. Their rationale is that, since the majority of the public is moderate in its views and wants an effective government, that expanding participation in elections will dilute the extremist partisan elements. Of course, this suggestion comes at a time when Republicans are doing all they can to suppress the voter turnout through strict voter ID laws. The authors also have some ideas for reducing the influence of money in elections in the wake of the Supreme Court Citizen’s United case, particularly through the use of financial disclosure requirements.
This is a critical time in the country’s history. As the economic influence of China and India grows, our economic prosperity requires that the US remain competitive. In order to do so, we need an effective government with the ability to solve problems and to respond to the needs of its citizens. Those who believe in American exceptionalism should also believe that the US deserves the greatest government in the world. This will simply never occur if we continue to vote for partisan ideological obstructionists to serve as our elected representatives. (less)
Distrust That Particular Flavor is a collection of non-fiction essays covering random topics that are apropos of nothing in particular (though they te...moreDistrust That Particular Flavor is a collection of non-fiction essays covering random topics that are apropos of nothing in particular (though they tend to be about the future of technology).
I found most to be of little interest, although a few (Disneyland with the Death Penalty for example) were ok.
All in all, a mostly mixed bag of stale leftovers. (less)
Politicians have been crying fire regarding the national debt since president Obama took office and the demagoguing is only going to get worse as we a...morePoliticians have been crying fire regarding the national debt since president Obama took office and the demagoguing is only going to get worse as we approach the silly season leading up to the 2012 elections. For this reason it’s important that Americans have a better understanding of the national debt, the risks, and possible solutions and there’s no one better to turn to than of MIT professor Simon Johnson and Harvard Fellow James Kwak. Not only are they experts in the field of economics, they also know how to write in a clear, unambiguous and cogent manner that non-experts can understand.
White House Burning examines the history of the national debt, causes of our current debt, and projections of debt into the future. The authors also look at the positive and negative consequences of debt and potential solutions to a growing national deficit. Not surprisingly, the party who denies evolution and global warming, thinks a zygote is a human and that the president is a Muslim who was born in Kenya is largely in error about the debt as well.
The fact is that debt in and of itself is not a bad thing, it allows a country to raise money quickly in response to immediate needs. If the money is invested in things that grow the economy beyond what it pays out in interest payments, debt is fiscally beneficial. If it grows too high, however, it can lead to problems such as those we now see in Europe, which is experiencing rising interest rates and economic stagnation. The current US debt is within manageable limits and is protected to a large extent by the fact that other countries are eager to lend the US money since the dollar is seen as a safe and stable investment. The debt could represent a problem in the future, though, as an aging and longer lived population push up the costs of the social insurance programs such as Social Security and Medicare. This is a problem that demands attention, but it’s not an immediate problem and it only becomes intractable if the political parties fail to act.
And this is the crux of the problem we now find ourselves in. Republicans see tax cuts as the solution to every problem despite the fact that tax cuts raise the debt. Thus the only solution in their minds is cutting or elimination of the social insurance programs. Never mind that elimination of these programs would result in more out of pocket costs for individuals and represent a vast transfer of wealth from those with the least to those with the most. It ignores the basic, underlying problem that all insurance programs (whether private or public) seek to solve … that of risk. Within a large society some individuals will be less healthy than others, and some will not earn enough during their working years to cover their retirement costs or the market will not return sufficient gains. By pooling resources amongst a broad population we are able to create a small safety net that keeps these individuals from destitution. A government with its fiscal stability and ability to negotiate favorable prices is uniquely suited to managing these programs and most Americans are in favor of their continuance.
Can we as a country afford to continue Social Security and Medicare? Of course, we’re the richest country in the world and the authors provide modest changes to our tax code that would make these programs solvent for the next 75 years. But we would better be able to afford them however if we could get health care costs under control. The US spends far more in health care and achieves worse results than other developed nations. There is good reason to believe that the problem the US faces is not one of debt, but one involving health care costs that are out of control. It will also take the effort of both parties. If one refuses to compromise and seeks to block all efforts by the other party for political gains at the expense of the country, the debt will continue to grow and we will all pay the price. (less)
The Watchers details the rise of the US Government’s domestic spying program in the aftermath of the 911 attacks mainly through the eyes of John Poind...moreThe Watchers details the rise of the US Government’s domestic spying program in the aftermath of the 911 attacks mainly through the eyes of John Poindexter (who gained notoriety as the individual who green-lighted sales of arms to Iran to fund Contra militants in Honduras). The text documents the shift from wire taps based on probable cause to unimpeded spying of phone, e-mail, web and every other form of digital communication (as well as video surveillance that includes face recognition capabilities and goodness knows what else).
This should make US citizens very uneasy. Do we know that the government is abusing its powers to spy on innocent civilians? We don’t, because the program is shrouded in secrecy and lacks the necessary transparency to prevent such abuses. However, we do know that history points to this inevitability.
The book appears to be meticulously researched but suffers from the fact that it focuses far too much on irrelevant details, resulting in a book that is entirely too long and largely uninteresting. What is more surprising is that Harris misses, what to me, would be the central point of any discussion of surveillance. Given the billions of dollars spent on these surveillance programs and the resulting loss of civil liberties, does it work and is it worth it? First of all, there’s no evidence that such a program is effective. No 911 style attack has yet to be thwarted by the spying program, yet hundreds of innocent Americans are on no-fly lists due to false positives. Maybe they took the wrong book out of the library, maybe their name is similar to that of a known terrorist, we don’t know. But this is exactly what you would expect from an ineffective program looking for events that occur infrequently by attempting to sift through reams of unrelated information. In addition, while tragic, the loss of nearly 3,000 lives over a decade ago as a result of the September 11 attacks hardly seems to justify the program, particularly in light of other activities that result in far more death and destruction (pollution, disease, automobile accidents, handgun deaths, medical mistakes and others). Many more lives could be saved by dedicating resources towards these more significant issues.
The problem isn’t that terrorism represents a grave threat to the country, it does not. Terrorism is used by weak individuals and groups against powerful foes. These weak groups cannot fight on equal footing, do not have access to nuclear weapons, and generally lack the capability to wreak massive destruction (given basic security precautions are taken … like putting locked doors on airplane cockpits). The problem is that surveillance makes sense politically. The government uses fear to incite a pant-wetting public, who then clamors for the government to do more. Politicians are rewarded for pandering to these base emotions (that they created in the first place) and the process feeds on itself to create an Orwellian system of surveillance. But this is the whole point of terrorism … to create a response that is far out of proportion with the actual threat. By setting up program that impedes individual liberties we wind up directly serving the intended purpose of the terrorists. This is the discussion that would have greatly improved this book.
As an aside, I found the book terribly distracting in one very peculiar way. It seems to have been written as an extended love letter to John Poindexter. Harris is so smitten, he swoons over Poindexter on every page with a sycophantic adoration that will make the reader’s face turn red with embarrassment. It wouldn’t surprise me to hear that they are now engaged. It’s not that I have a problem with public displays of affection, it’s that the book is supposed to be a journalistic endeavor and as such, requires the author to set aside his biases in favor of impartial reporting.(less)
Right wingers increasingly appear to be operating in an alternate reality where facts don't matter and truth is dictated by those with the most money...moreRight wingers increasingly appear to be operating in an alternate reality where facts don't matter and truth is dictated by those with the most money and the biggest mouths. Thus we have birthers, death panels, global warming denial, anti-evolutionism, the belief that abstinence only education works, that the president is a Muslim, and Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein (who also supposedly had weapons of mass destruction) were in league together to cause 911, and a host of other ideas that would otherwise qualify one to admittance to a mental asylum if they weren't so widely believed. In The Republican Brain Chris Mooney sets out to explain why the right is detached from reality and why patently proven facts have no sway on their outlook. He also examines why this psychological phenomenon almost exclusively occurs in those who brand themselves as conservative.
Multiple scientific studies are converging on a consensus of the psychological traits of conservatives, the main characteristics of which include a lack of openness to new experience, less tolerance of uncertainty and ambiguity, need for closure and a lack of integrative complexity. With the formation of closed-minded opinions, conservatives are less likely to investigate alternative viewpoints and accommodate additional evidence, while at the same time the individual is unable to see nuance, complexity or appreciate differing viewpoints. In addition, conservatives are more rigidly hierarchical which leads to group-think and intolerance of dissent. This vast and growing body of scientific evidence explaining conservative behavior fits remarkably consistently with events that play out in American culture and I’m sure conservatives would agree 100% … except for the fact that the research presented by Mooney shows that they won’t and also explains exactly why.
While people of all political stripes engage in motivated reasoning (the act of starting with a conclusion that one hoped to reach and then selectively evaluating evidence in order to reach that conclusion), studies show that conservatives (especially authoritarians) are far more likely than liberals to cling tenaciously to wrong ideas and argue fiercely on their behalf. These tendencies are reinforced by individuals who select news and information that confirms (rather than dis-confirms) their mistaken ideas resulting in Republicans consistently being more misinformed than Democrats about key political issues and that Fox News viewers are the least informed of all (even more poorly informed than those who watch no news at all).
Mooney did a great job with this book, and I consider it to be a tremendous improvement over his earlier works. Though I’ve found each of his books to be well researched and that he does a good job explaining the science, in the past I felt that he didn’t do a very good job maintaining his readers interest (or at least my own). The Republican Brain remains fascinating throughout. (less)
Anyone who has kept up with the news these last few years knows that Arizona has repeatedly made itself the butt of a running series of bad and often...moreAnyone who has kept up with the news these last few years knows that Arizona has repeatedly made itself the butt of a running series of bad and often tragic jokes. It is a state that is among the least educated (7th from the bottom in terms of adults with a college education), where politicians are elected on platforms of xenophobia and a shrivel-faced, tongue-tied governor takes pride in wagging her finger in the president’s face.
While there are many troubling aspects to Arizona’s dysfunctional politics, the question Zoellner examines is whether any of them played a role in the assassination attempt of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in a Safeway parking lot in January of 2011 by Jared Lee Loughner. The simple answer … is no, and Zoellner admits as much. And this goes a long way toward explaining why A Safeway in Arizona winds up being an uneven and rambling description of the state of the State.
The book begins with a compelling description of the events that occurred on the day of the shooting leading up to the 15 second bloodbath that left 6 people dead and 13 others injured. From there, the book drifts aimlessly from topic to topic with no sense of connecting events to make a broader point. Subjects include Zoellner’s life growing up in Tucson, his friendship with Giffords, Arizona politics and history, immigration, Sherriff Joe Arpaio, mental illness, gun laws, the housing market, social isolation, the economy, and other factors pertinent in the state. Zoellner presents his ideas almost as a stream of consciousness, shifting from one subject to the next. While this approach provides a good overview for the uninitiated of the dysfunctional conditions that exist in the state, it’s old news for those of us who reside here.
There’s no doubt that lax gun laws provided no barrier to Loughner obtaining a weapon, and overheated political rhetoric in Arizona likely did nothing to ameliorate his disturbed mental state. It would be difficult to consider these factors to be the primary cause of the shootings, though, given Loughner’s diagnosis as a paranoid schizophrenic with a long history of disturbed behavior. In the end, Zoellner wishes the events of January 8, 2011 had been used as an opportunity for politicians and their constituents to reexamine civic values in Arizona. While a pleasant thought, such an activity could only take place in a state governed by thoughtful and empathetic leaders with strong problem solving skills. Unfortunately, this is no way describes the state in which we live. (less)
Anyone who has the slightest ability to think rationally recognizes that Fox News acts as the sleazy propaganda arm of the republican politburo and st...moreAnyone who has the slightest ability to think rationally recognizes that Fox News acts as the sleazy propaganda arm of the republican politburo and studies have shown that it's viewers are among the least informed of the American citizenry. In The Fox Effect, authors David Brock and Ari Rabin-Havt document the many ways Fox lies, distorts, and manipulates the news to serve their conservative ideology and in fact, reveal the lie that it's primary purpose is as a 'news' organization.
Unfortunately, reading the book is akin to being forced to wade through the interminable cesspool of Fox nonsense spewed over the past decade. Having to relive the ACORN smear, psychotic Glenn Beck rants, Shirley Sherrod debacle, global warming denialism, Bush cheerleading, birther nonsense, tea party rallies, Sarah Palin stupidity, fake Obama Muslim connection, Reverend Wright demonization and more, is a bit much to bear.
To the credit of Fox, the endless drumbeat of anger and misinformation has had a profound effect on the national dialog and electoral politics. The result has been significantly damaging, but it's an effect none-the-less. (less)
Despite the sensationalist title and cover Attack of the Theocrats! is a rather reasonable call to bolster the wall of separation between church and s...moreDespite the sensationalist title and cover Attack of the Theocrats! is a rather reasonable call to bolster the wall of separation between church and state that was the founders intention and to eliminates government policies that favor religious institutions and conflict with the establishment clause of the constitution. These include tax payer funded support for institutions that are allowed to discriminate in their hiring practices based on religion or sexual orientation, laws that permit lower safety standards for religious child-care facilities, reduced tax auditing for churches, unfair tax-free housing allowances, and other special rights not afforded to secular institutions.
While the goal is a good one, the book often reads like an extended advertisement for the Secular Coalition of America (of which Faircloth is the former executive director). Even though I agree with the mission of this group, their ad copy fails to make for compelling reading. With that said, it is nice to see that the group is getting away from silly, superficial issues such as protesting nativity scenes on public property and focusing on real issues that would have a meaningful effect on people’s lives. (less)
As we enter the 2012 election cycle, chances are you’ve asked yourself on more than one occasion “What the hell is wrong with these people?” - Unregula...moreAs we enter the 2012 election cycle, chances are you’ve asked yourself on more than one occasion “What the hell is wrong with these people?” - Unregulated finance companies leveraged beyond their means trading in credit default swaps almost bring about global financial collapse and instead of responding with strong regulations to reign in these abuses we have free market zealots clamoring for less government intervention and more of what brought about the catastrophe. - People with pre-existing health conditions are unable to get insurance coverage and those with insurance are going bankrupt after learning how little coverage they actually have. Yet attempts to establish basic health care reforms are met with cries of “Get government out of my Medicare!” - An attempt to raise taxes on executives who are paying less tax than their secretaries? “Redistribution of wealth!” Why do plain, hardworking people on the right carry water for the very richest and most privileged members of our society and vote against rational public policy that would benefit them the most? Why would a society that values personal liberty and merit based achievement seek to limit their own freedoms* and actively strive to solidify an aristocracy to which they have no chance of joining?
Thomas Frank, a keen observer of cultural and political trends thinks he has the answer (and it’s not unlike the answer he proposed in What’s the Matter With Kansas). Basically, it’s the old switcheroo. Take the public anger against the banks for foreclosing on your house and misdirect it towards anger at the government and liberal politicians who bailed out the banks (never mind that the program began under Bush). Take the outrage over bonuses for financial company executives who crashed the economy and turn it into a Tea Party protesting raising taxes (never mind that the increase would only effect those making more than $250,000/yr). Convince people that we really do live in upside-down-world.
PR firms, pundits and right wing politicians haven’t been able to prevent the public from becoming aware that they are being screwed, but they have been very effective in misdirecting the anger in ways that serve their own ends. In those cases where the anger cannot be diverted, they resort to demonization and marginalization. And the public seemingly falls for it every time. In Pity the Billionaire Frank pulls away the veil, revealing the tactics for the cynical, self-serving, manipulation that they are, and he does so with scathing wit and intelligence. He also has a few choice remarks for the tone-deaf, weak-willed democrats whose defining attribute is that they have completely blown it, and seem incapable of doing otherwise.
* Freedom from destitution due to a job loss. Freedom from illness due to lack of insurance. Freedom from an endless string of mindless low wage jobs due to lack of an education.(less)
Bird on Fire is about the problems faced by many big cities (using Phoenix, Arizona as an example). Ross’s contention is that if these problems can be...moreBird on Fire is about the problems faced by many big cities (using Phoenix, Arizona as an example). Ross’s contention is that if these problems can be solved in Phoenix (where the hurdles are large due to the limited resources of the desert and the misplaced reliance of the state legislature on ideology over critical thinking and problem solving) that they can be solved anywhere. Ross admits up front that the book’s subtitle Lessons from the World's Least Sustainable City is pure hyperbole, and this annoys me to no end. It’s a shame many authors are willing to sacrifice their integrity for a sensationalistic title just to sell a few extra copies.
At any rate, the book investigates such topics as energy, pollution, water resources, sprawl, jobs, urban renewal, immigration, and growth. There is no doubt that Phoenix struggles with each of these problems and Ross does a decent job documenting the issues themselves and the failure of the state and local businesses to address them.
A few things I felt Ross could have been done better: 1. In his discussion of the environment, he focuses too much on groundwater pollution. While solvent contamination of the groundwater under Phoenix is not a good thing, the reality is that no one is getting their drinking water from these contaminated plumes. A much better issue for Ross to have focused his attention would have been air quality, something that everyone experiences (since everyone breaths). Bad air quality leads to elevated rates of emergency room admittances and premature deaths of the elderly and those suffering from asthma and is far more important to resident’s health than the groundwater contamination Ross discusses. 2. Ross gives more credence and influence to fringe individuals and groups than they deserve in some cases. While colorful and perhaps motivated by noble ambitions, the reality is that their influence remains small and in certain instances the individuals are notoriously lacking in credibility. 3. In his discussion of immigration Ross seems to conflate the immigrants that cross the border from Mexico to Arizona with environmental refugees fleeing rising sea levels as a result of global warming. Perhaps I misunderstood his point, but the fact that he kept raising the two issues together as if they were related, at best muddies the waters. I don’t think there is any doubt that immigration is occurring solely due to economic considerations. I also have to take issue with his characterization of any form of discussion relating to population control as “eugenics”. It rivals the absurdity of the Catholic Church’s conflation of contraception with abortion.
So … in the end what is the biggest “Lesson from the World's Least Sustainable City”? Probably the most important one is … whatever Phoenix has done … do exactly the opposite. (less)
F.U.B.A.R. is a satisfying liberal screed replete with snarky sarcasm. Though there's not much depth and the material is a bit dated, the overall them...moreF.U.B.A.R. is a satisfying liberal screed replete with snarky sarcasm. Though there's not much depth and the material is a bit dated, the overall themes and humor hold up quite nicely. (less)
In War Is a Force that Gives Us Meaning Chris Hedges looks at the topic through the lens of is years as a war correspondent and through the eyes of ci...moreIn War Is a Force that Gives Us Meaning Chris Hedges looks at the topic through the lens of is years as a war correspondent and through the eyes of civilians caught in the crossfire. Not a terribly cheerful topic, but Hedges provides some insight into aspects of war that every hawk (whatever happened to the term 'warmonger') in congress should be familiar with.(less)
If you’ve ever felt that the economic system is rigged against the little guy … guess what? It is. Big money interests have been striving diligently f...moreIf you’ve ever felt that the economic system is rigged against the little guy … guess what? It is. Big money interests have been striving diligently for decades to ensure that they control the political agenda, despite your own personal desires, the needs of the people, or what may be good for the country. Corporate interests use their increased financial power to elect individuals who, in turn, serve their corporate masters by enacting legislation that benefits the rich, who grow ever richer and more powerful Although anyone who is remotely sentient will not find this cause of our present predicament to be terribly surprising, Winner-Take-All Politics explains exactly how this was accomplished and how both political parties aided and abetted the crime (so as not to be accused with false equivalency it’s important to acknowledge that the republicans must shoulder the vast majority of the blame).
The structure of the book is conventional: problem statement, background information, solution (the latter, as is typical of books of this type, consisting of only a few short, not particularly helpful pages).
Problem Statement: Income inequality in the US is greater than any other developed country. The middle class is becoming increasingly hollowed out, while the top 1% controls disproportionately more of the overall wealth. Wages have stagnated for those on the lower and middle rungs of the economic ladder and median household income has fallen. All this while the richest of the rich have seen their personal wealth grow in leaps and bounds. Now, more than at any other time in the nation’s history, the winners are taking it all while everyone else is left to fight over the scraps.
Background: The bulk of the book is dedicated to the history of our present plight, which (of course) involves the increasing influence of money in politics as well as the radicalization of the right wing the Republican Party. In addition to blatant giveaways to the rich (tax cuts, the elimination of the estate tax, and lowering the capital gains tax, for example), politicians also aid the top 1% through trade legislation (NAFTA & CAFTA), failure to enforce statutes such as the Sarbanes–Oxley Act, laws that make it more difficult to unionize, repeal of laws designed to protect investors (the Glass Steagall Act), and enactment of laws that allow corporations to form off shore tax havens. Politicians have also aided the most well to do through their blind adherence to unregulated, unrestrained free-market capitalism. Their failure to regulate new financial instruments nearly brought down the global economy and required a government bailout of banks that were simultaneously foreclosing on the very individuals with whose tax money they were lining their pockets.
The authors document these legislative efforts back to the Carter administration. Added together, they represent a radical shift from progressive taxation and democratic governance to a winner-take-all plutocracy.
Solution: The fact that the last section of the book is so very weak is testament to how intractable the problem has become. Political reform must come through political means. However, given the depth of the corruption, and the deep entrenchment of moneyed interests, the prospect of such reforms is unlikely in the extreme. In truth, despite the efforts of a few in the Occupy Wall Street movement to draw attention to the problem, our Jeffersonian form of democracy may be at an end. (less)
Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat examines the often contradictory ways in which people view animals. They are our pets, our food, our draft an...moreSome We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat examines the often contradictory ways in which people view animals. They are our pets, our food, our draft animals, our prey and predator. They illicit emotions and feelings of love, antipathy, disgust and irresistible cuteness. Herzog looks at these issues by investigating the subject areas of: dogs, cock fighting, carnivorism, animal testing and the animal rights movement.
Herzog does a good job outlining the complicated and seemingly hypocritical manner that animals are perceived and treated. - Dogs are seen as members of the family, working animals or food depending on circumstances and culture. - Millions of chickens spend their entire lives being raised in horrendous conditions before being stuffed in crates, electrocuted then having their throats slit, while cock fighting is perceived as barbaric by the broader society. - Animal testing is viewed as a highly controversial subject, particularly in cases of beauty product testing that are of dubious value to humanity.
Most people that choose to perform a close examination their own view of animals will inevitably find inconsistencies and contradictions. This is a result of the fact that we’ve evolved to be omnivorous, yet also have a finely honed sense of right and wrong (and the fact that certain animals are delicious). This sets up cognitive dissonance that some find difficult to resolve. Ancient people found resolution by honoring the spirit of the animal that was killed for food through ritual. Today, supermarkets sell meat in plastic wrapped, styrofoam trays that makes it easy for us to ignore the fact that we’re purchasing the dismembered corpse of a once living animal with the capacity to suffer.
The book is easy to read and informative, and Herzog takes a balanced approach to an issue that has the potential to illicit strong emotions. On the downside, I’m not sure that cock fighting is really the best example he could have used to serve his point, but it was the subject of his doctoral dissertation, so it’s one he’s familiar with. Also, I wish he had spent more time on the various ways used to justify human’s treatment of animals as well as humanities relationship with wild animals (a subject entirely ignored). (less)
Now is a good time to read Unequal Protection: How Corporations Became People and How You Can Fight Back in light of the Occupy Wall Street movement...moreNow is a good time to read Unequal Protection: How Corporations Became People and How You Can Fight Back in light of the Occupy Wall Street movement and growing nationwide dissatisfaction with corporations and moneyed interests domination of politics and the public sphere.
In the book, Thom Hartmann documents the sordid history of corporate personhood and how the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution (protecting freedom of speech and equal protection under the law) were perverted by the Supreme Court to apply to corporations. Hartmann also documents how this interpretation conflicted with the founders original intent.
For those that don’t know, the 14th Amendment was written to give freed slaves equal protection under the law. While the US founders issued charters to corporations under the condition that they served a public good, intending strict governmental control over their power and influence.
As “people” under the law, corporations are now free to spend unlimited sums of money influence politicians, purchase media time to advertise their policies, file lawsuits against people and institutions who lack the financial resources to fight back, enact legislation, and distort public perception of issues all is ways that serve their needs, often in ways antithetical to public well being and the proper functioning of a democratic society. This makes itself felt in many of the most severe problems facing the country today: · Rising income disparity · Environmental degradation, including a failure to enact legislation to combat global warming · Media consolidation, which limits dissenting and alternative viewpoints · Shifting of the tax burden from corporations and the rich to the lower and middle classes · A suppression of entrepreneurs as large corporations erect barriers to entry for small businesses · A subversion of the democratic process (most the time the candidate who spends the most money wins) · And others
Near the end of the book Hartmann discusses actions that can be taken to help restore the balance of power to actual (as opposed to artificial) people. We can certainly expect an uphill battle to overturn more than 100 years of legal decisions based on the interpretation that the supreme court declared corporations to be people in 1886. The Occupy Wall Street movement and the fact that a majority of US citizens agree with their message is certainly a hopeful sign that the country is ready to take steps in this direction. (less)
In The Science of Liberty: Democracy, Reason, and the Laws of Nature author Timothy Ferris posits that liberal democratic governance arose as an outgr...moreIn The Science of Liberty: Democracy, Reason, and the Laws of Nature author Timothy Ferris posits that liberal democratic governance arose as an outgrowth of scientific thinking and the ideals of the enlightenment. And, in fact, that the two are inseparable. In this sweeping book (and by sweeping I'm referring to both its historic scope ... and length) Ferris covers science and democratic thought, how one supports the other and the consequences that arise when one, or the other, goes off the rail.
His main contention is that science requires an anti-authoritarian mind set in order to function at its best. Scientists must have maximal freedom so that they can question orthodoxies, perform experiments and gather evidence to arrive at a result (especially when that result demolishes established conventions). Similarly, a liberal democracy functions best when it maximizes the freedom of its citizens, allowing them to question authority and arrive at their own, best, form of self-governance.
So, first let me say that Ferris is a seasoned science writer. He’s authored a number of other scientific books written for a general audience and it shows in his clear, interesting and polished style of writing. I also admire his attempts to follow the evidence where it leads (like any good scientist or journalist) rather than simply espousing a particular ideology. In fact, individuals on all sides of the political spectrum will likely find themselves agreeing with and arguing against Ferris’s views in turns. Regardless, most will find the book provides food for thought.
As for the premise of the book (that science promotes and is indispensable to a liberal democracy), Ferris provides a compelling argument, but I remain unconvinced. First, I find the premise itself to be a fairly vague and ambiguous one. The concepts of “science” and “democracy” have such broad definitions that it would be surprising if links could not be found between the two. It’s like asking whether a link exists between “physical health” and “mental health”. Of course there is, but there are an infinite number of gradations within the two concepts such that the link can only be established by evoking a hazy and general trend.
I would also venture that if “science” and “democracy” were inextricably linked, you would not expect a country like Russia to possess a vibrant space program, while others such as Amsterdam (or any other European nation) to have no substantive space program whatsoever (and no ... pot smoking doesn’t count as “space travel”). (less)
Probably the most lasting impact of Thomas More's book Utopia is that it brought the word "utopia" into the English language. With that said, the book...moreProbably the most lasting impact of Thomas More's book Utopia is that it brought the word "utopia" into the English language. With that said, the book (published in 1516) was rather forward looking in that it put forth ideas of socialism, egalitarianism, women’s rights, euthanasia, divorce, religious tolerance, the ability of a priest to marry and others, long before they had been tried in practice (in fact, some are still being debated today).
The book takes the form of an imaginary dialog between a traveler named Raphael, who had spent 5 years living among the Utopians, and More to whom he describes their way of life. There is some debate about whether More was being sarcastic in his description of Utopia or whether he agreed with the ideas of the book. I suspect the latter and that he used a convenient plot device that allowed him to put his ideas into the public sphere, while couching them in parody in order to cover his butt. "I didn't say that you sucked, a character in my book said that someone who is coincidentally very much like you sucked ... in jest of course."
Given that life in Elizabethan England wasn’t terribly pleasant in many ways (as an example, More himself was executed by Henry VIII for some slight to the king), the life depicted in Utopia probably sounded pretty good to most at the time. The egalitarian aspects were likely especially desirable, given the vast economic inequality (with most living in squalor) of the times. However, given the luxury of hindsight, a few aspects of Utopian life (most notably slavery) don’t seem very ideal today. (less)
As you might have guessed, Nixonland documents the rise and fall of the 37th president of the US and the twin forces of civil rights and the Vietnam W...moreAs you might have guessed, Nixonland documents the rise and fall of the 37th president of the US and the twin forces of civil rights and the Vietnam War. Perlstein has meticulously reconstructed a litany of events and the social unrest, conflict and strife of the time in a way that reveals the inter-connectedness between the political and public struggles.
Probably the most surprising element of Perlstein’s book, is the vast amount of social upheaval and change that was taking place during the late 60’s and early 70’s, and the fact that none of the progressive gains came easily. Civil rights marches, police brutality, takeover of college campuses, the shootings at Kent State, the black power movement, the Vietnam War, hippies and riot gear, birth control and the sexual revolution … events that brought about huge increases in equality at the expense of social unrest (the backlash of which we’re still experiencing with the rise of right wing conservatives who want to “take our country back” to a time before these incidents occurred).
Perlstein interweaves Nixon’s story against a cultural backdrop of drugs and tear gas. As a vindictive striver with deep seated resentments of privilege coupled with a sense of victimhood, Nixon represented a transition of the republican party from the pragmatic conservatism of Dwight Eisenhower to the mean-spirited, divisive, say anything to get elected, power at all cost, ideology of today’s right wing. In fact, the Bush administration resurrected a number of the same strategies developed under Nixon, including: the cynical use of flag pins as a surrogate for patriotism, branding of those who push for an end to war as ‘traitors’ or ‘wanting America to fail’, use of the phrase ‘cut and run’, delaying withdrawal using the excuse that ‘we’ll stand down when our allies stand up’, the use of the ‘southern strategy’ and fear as a political weapon, and demonization of the press and dissenters as having a liberal bias and as un-American. It’s the same old vicious, divisive crap, and yet 40 years later the painfully slow-to-learn Democrats are still struggling to come up with a cogent response.
The 1960’s were an important time in America’s history and Nixonland does a nice job documenting both the gains we made as a country and the price we paid, both in terms of social unrest and the conservative backlash. The book is well done overall, but at nearly 900 pages, contains somewhat more detail about the period and the president than I’d ever want, or need to know. (less)
Class Matters – New York Times Correspondents Class Matters examines the effects of social class on the lives of people living in the US. The book is a...moreClass Matters – New York Times Correspondents Class Matters examines the effects of social class on the lives of people living in the US. The book is a compilation of articles by correspondents to the New York Times and is written in an easy to read, newspaper style (which I suppose means it’s suitable for anyone with a 6th grade education).
A core tenet of the American mythology is this idea that if you work hard and get a good education you will succeed. Control over one’s socio-economic class is a powerful idea, especially for those living in societies where birthright trumps personal achievement. Unfortunately, the “American Dream” is increasingly taking the form of a myth rather than a reality that can be attained. Instead of class being a product of a person’s intelligence, inventiveness or work ethic , the single biggest predictor of an individual’s class is that of their parents.
Studies have found that transitions from one class to another are the exception to the rule and are becoming more difficult over time (social mobility is the 70’s was easier than in the 80’s, which in turn was easier than in the 90’s, etc.). Clearly this is a predictable outcomes of rising economic inequality. Money provides the advantages of education and connections. Those starting from the bottom are faced with hurdles that simply do not exist for those at the top. Regrettably, given the force of money in politics these days, it appears that the moneyed interests are deeply entrenched in their position and on their way to creating a permanent underclass.
While convenient for some, it is a real problem for the US as a whole. If aristocracy, rather than meritocracy, becomes the source of prosperity then there is no incentive for personal achievement. Under these conditions, the competitive position of the US in the global economy will continue to erode. (less)
Loading...
