labingi: (ivan)
I've done a couple of reviews of French stuff:

Rousseau: A Discourse on the Origin of Inequality: Surprisingly outdated and yet still current.

Victor Hugo, The Man Who Laughs: Good story (about the guy whose look inspired the Joker in Batman) but disappointingly executed.
labingi: (Default)
Thoughts on Romney's statements...

Romney: "There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what."

Boy, I hope so.

Romney: "All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government..."

Of course, we're dependent on government. A population of over 130 million people is far too large to organize without its being managed through some kind of government. Does Romney really believe we have no dependence on government, i.e. we need no government? Is he, in fact, an anarchist? If so, why is he running for President of a government he feels is not necessary?

Romney: "... [47 percent] who believe that they are victims..."

I do to an extent. It depends on what you mean by victim. I certainly feel victimized by a social structure that enriches a tiny majority with ridiculous profits at the expense of funding for things like my--socially very important--job so that I'm underpaid and constantly in fear of losing my job. I feel victimized by living in one of the richest nations in the world but being alone among developed nations in having no reliable access to a doctor, in having my access to a doctor contingent on staying in job that is underpaid and I may lose anyway in a few years because my other immediate options would certainly provide no benefits.

Now, if by "victim" one means a mindset in which one does not put one's back into hoeing one's row (however horrible the soil), then I hope I'm not a victim. I do work very hard and dream hard, too, about possibilities for building a life I'd like. I'm like most Americans I've met in this.

Romney: "... [47 percent] who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. "

"You-name-it," of course, has no content. To this list, I would add "education." Beyond that, I can't think of anything I feel financially entitled to, except perhaps fair remuneration for seizures for eminent domain or of property by the police.

I sincerely wish I lived in a country in which 47 percent of the population believed in these entitlements. If I did, we might be well on the way to a genuine social democracy, in which all people are granted a basic right to life with basic dignity. Alas, I don't believe Romney's numbers are correct here. I encounter comparatively few Americans who really believe in this piece of common sense (even in my mostly Democratic town, in my mostly Democratic state).

Romney: "These [47 percent] are people who pay no income tax."

Here's an interesting article on why people don't pay income tax.

The statement that this 47 percent is identical to those who believe in entitlements is false: I pay income tax and I believe in entitlements.

(Romney text via Mother Jones)
labingi: (ivan)
Today said to me, "Some of the biggest Republican donors are AT&T, Verizon, Bank of America, and J.P. Morgan Chase. Can you tell these companies, 'You could lose my business if you keep funding Republicans as they crash our economy'?"

Well,, no. At least not in any way any of these companies would believe. As far as I know, I don't do business with Verizon and Chase, so no business to lose there. As for AT&T, well, it's about to buy out T-Mobile, which is my cell phone provider, and my only other option for cell phone service, realistically, would be Verizon, which I categorically refuse to do business with until they are they only monopoly left given the way they used contractual small print to charge me more than twice as much as I have ever paid from any other equivalent service for crappy "high speed" internet that froze routinely several times a week, despite the fact that my use of the service was pretty minimal: email and casual surfing really, no major downloads or uploads.

You see, in the US, it's virtually impossible to tell both AT&T and Verizon you won't work with them unless you're willing not to have a cell phone, and your not having a cell phone will hurt you significantly more than it will hurt them. (I guess Sprint might be some sort of option maybe?)

As for Bank of America*, I've spent years trying not to do business with them, only to have my "socially responsible" credit card company, Working Assets, bought out by them. I suppose I could do a massive search for other credit card companies and try to ascertain which of the two or three mega-conglomerate banks own their various front organizations, but I even if I found one, I have no say in whether B of A or Chase buys them out the day after I sign up.

So, no,, I can't really tell them they'll lose my business. Furthermore, for all the folks who do, I think they'll understand well enough that those folks, of necessity, are lying.

*In the interest of fairness, though, I will say that when my credit card showed a suspicious charge recently, B of A was absolutely professional, efficient, and user friendly in handling the problem. I have to give them full marks there.
labingi: (ivan) (which I belong to and usually pretty much agree with) just sent me an email calling for the resignation of Alan Simpson, Deficit Commission Co-Chair, because he made a comment in which he called those who rely Social Security for income "lesser people."

I followed a link graciously provided by to, where I watched the interview in question, and I have to say, I like this guy.

Now, I have not followed the Social Security debate. Considering that we're on different side of the political aisle, I probably disagree with this gentleman's plans for how to manage SS insofar as I would understand them (though I do actually agree in a general, long-term way that the retirement age must rise as/if life expectancy rises; I've long assumed I'll have to work till I'm over 65, and if I'm in sound health, that doesn't seem too horrifying).

But as for the interview itself, yes, a lot of it was tone deaf. Calling working class people "lesser" certainly was, as was the chorus of "crap" and "bullshit," etc. But it was honest. Here was a guy who appears to have been taken aside in a hallway and asked, with no prep whatever, to talk about his views on SS. He could have walked out with a "no comment." But he didn't. He spoke to this fellow who clearly disagreed with him for quite some time in quite some detail about serious aspects of the issue. He sounded annoyed and put out and stressed, as I don't doubt he is. He said a lot of unpolished things, but I like that they were unpolished and that he was willing to say them. I would take this any day over ultra-rehearsed Newspeak drafted by professional speech writers. I came away from this interview feeling this guy had actually thought about the issue he was working on and had real feelings about it. I might disagree with him, but if he is called on resign, it should be because his ideas for fixing the system are bogus, not because he said the wrong word in the act of agreeing to talk to someone in a honest, unrehearsed way about issues that seem genuinely important to him.


labingi: (Default)

June 2017

181920212223 24


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 27th, 2017 08:52 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios