Mix Bakeshop
Soy Cappuccino
Anise Shortbread
Bittersweet Chocolate Chip Cookie
It's storytime with Chandra!
Someone asked about a reference I made a little while ago to Buttonwillow, and why I always stop there when I drive up or down I-5. So cast your minds back 17 years ago (yikes!) to June of 1997... Graduation night...
For graduation, my mother gave me a AAA membership, which came with four free tows and four free tire changes. This was a wise gift since my car - my first, my baby, my freedom - was a 1969 Volkswagen Beetle. It was house paint green and primer grey, with the red and white of previous paint jobs showing through in places. It was perfectly complete with duct tape and bondo, a driver side window that was permanently cracked open about an inch - no more, no less - and an oil leak. In fact, when I had first driven it up to my friend's house, all of my male friends had converged around it, and before I had said a word, they asked, "Okay, other than the oil leak, what's wrong with it?" They warned me to run the heater to pull the hot air from the engine (intensely uncomfortable advice for summertime in southern California) so it wouldn't overheat, and they forbade me from driving more than 100 miles because "something" would happen.
My car had a 9-ball topper for a gear shift, and it was officially named Robespierre, because I had originally called it Turtle, and that's kind of long story why those two names are connected and involves an animated Judy Garland movie. To everyone else, it was known as RoadTrip. Roady, for short.
Back to graduation...
I had a pathetically quiet grad night. I had been named my class's valedictorian, which was a total surprise to me. They announced my future plans to go to Cabrillo College to study math and become an actuary. (This was before I understood that an actuary is basically a person who figures out the likelihood of your demise for insurance companies. That was not the way it had been described to me at the time.). And I looked stunning that night under my cap and gown, and that's saying something. I was finally getting happy with my body, now that my adult curves had come in and things had balanced out. But I spent my night alone at Denny's, after I had said good-bye to family and a few friends. Writing. And anxious to leave town.
But I had to wait four more days till my childhood best friend, T (I shall call her), had graduated from her high school. As I said before, my friends advised me to never travel more than a hundred miles at a time, so they simply refused to let me travel the four hundred miles from the ass-end of the Inland Empire (no one called it the I.E., in my day) up north to Santa Cruz, alone. So, hours after T's graduation, we threw some stuff in my car, made several last minute additions and adjustments, and headed north to freedom.
At 18, my biggest fear was getting stuck. Getting stuck in that godsforsaken desert of southern California, getting stuck in poverty, getting stuck somewhere in some situation without the ability to rescue myself. I was desperate to escape. All I wanted was to move home - to cool weather and redwoods and the taste of saltwater in the air - and to go to school. If I could just get through school, get my degree, then I would not be doomed to be poor forever.
It was the middle of the night, creeping up the Grapevine Pass in the same lane as the semis, blasting the "Great, Great Road Tape" on my little portable tape player, trying to out-howl the wind coming through my perpetually open window. We decided to press on past Gorman since we had gotten such a late start. We would stop in Buttonwillow, as my older brother had advised. He had some superstition about stopping there after certain roadtrip misadventures of his own.
We descended the Pass, still in the dead of night, into California's great Central Valley. We skipped the first town, Metler. We were only 30 miles from Buttonwillow, and the slow climb had set our time back even further.
Fifteen miles out from Buttonwillow, I blew a tire.
In the dark of night, along one of the most heavily traveled interstates in America, T and I walked to an emergency phone and called AAA. Thank you, Mom. AAA sent a tow truck. My spare was not only flat, but the frame was smashed. We got towed back to Metler. The sun was hinting at its arrival. I watched giant oil jacks undulate against the perfect shade of blue sky.
When we got to the garage, the driver pulled out his one and only tire that would fit my car. T pointed out that it was cracked all over. The driver gave us the tire for free and told us to get a new one as soon as we got to the next town. T and I gassed up the car, got some nibbles, and got back on the 5.
We talked it over - I had almost no money to make this trip. I had been working as a math tutor and as a "boothie" at the local Renaissance Faire, so I had scrounged together just enough for gas and food, round trip. We decided to take it easy and try to make it on the bad tire. And having just gassed up in Metler, we drove past Buttonwillow without stopping. That was my brother's superstition, anyway.
A mile past Buttonwillow we blew the sketchy tire.
Second free tow used. Second free tire change used. This tire was good, though, and set me back $65. I think it was the second check I had ever written. We dined at the Denny's in Buttonwillow, and got back on the now morning-bright road.
Less than two miles past Buttonwillow, I noticed I was having trouble passing cars. Since I knew the next major town was 60 miles north (Coalinga, land of the cow internment camp), I took the next overpass and headed back to Buttonwillow. The owner of the garage was on his lunch, but he graciously took my car for a quick test drive.
"Yep! Your transmission's going."
T and I drove into town and called my brother. Before I can say anything, he asks, "How far'd you get?"
"Buttonwillow."
"Okay, be there in three hours."
I parked Roady at a gas station with a note promising my imminent return. Then T and I checked into a cheap hotel room to wait out the next few hours. While T was in the shower, I called a friend, who asked which room I was in. "Isn't that the one where the murder happened?"
T and I got dressed up and played cards. Three hours later, we wedged our stuff and ourselves into my brother's pick-up and headed back to evil, vile, fucking SoCal.
The next day, when I should have been in Santa Cruz getting registered and advancing my life, I was instead back home with my then sister-in-law and my niece, in full mope. We were listening to the radio. They called out the license plate of someone sporting the radio station's bumper sticker. Some lucky person had won tickets to see Blues Traveler. Woo-hoo, for you.
Mope.
But after an hour, they still had not called, so the station offered up the tickets to caller number 10. Why not? I called.
I won.
I don't win. Whenever something is winnable, I do the opposite. But I won. I didn't care that the concert was in August during my first week of school 400 miles away and that I didn't have a car that was likely to get out of Buttonwillow, let alone make another 800 mile round trip. I won something.
So, come August, I cut my classes, borrowed my aunt's car, picked-up my sister, and (after a nap) we headed to the Greek Theater to see Blues Traveler. Joan Osbourne was the opening act. She was awesome. And in the time between the opener and the headliner, my sister and I chatted with the guys in the row in front of us.
They, too, had won tickets. Or, rather, the big guy with the long hair who looked strikingly like Silent Bob had won tickets on a different radio station. He hadn't been caller 10, though. The radio hosts had been taking callers to see who could come up with the worst pick-up line that might actually work on a woman. His winning line: "You're so beautiful, I'd drink a tub of your bathwater."
But Walker always won, I was to find out.
Blues Traveler came on and were beyond awesome. I remember at one point, Bruce Willis showed up to play with them. They blew out the speakers. John Popper told a wonderful, cringe-worthy joke (which I will not repeat here) while the roadies fixed the equipment. But the highlight, the profound, life-changing turning point, came during the song "Hook."
I had made a point of memorizing all the words, including the fast-talking (would you call it "rap"?) part, so I was still singing along as half the crowd had dropped out. Walker turned around, slack-jawed. "You know all the words?"
I smiled and kept singing.
"Oh my god - marry me."
"Where's my ring?"
He pulled the one off his thumb and I tried it on. Way too big, of course. He assured me he would get me another. And long story short (too late!) he did.
By the end of my first quarter in college, as things fell apart in Santa Cruz, I moved back to fucking southern California. My fiancé and I lived with his parents, and we both went to school - he was an English major trying to be a writer, and I had shifted to a math/physics major. This would only be temporary, though, until we could get back to Santa Cruz for the fall.
Right.
As with so much of my life, temporary became permanent, and things fell apart in all sorts of ways. But nothing in my life is how it would have been had I not met him. The people I know now, my old Borders family from Cali and Connecticut, were people I met directly or indirectly because of him. And strangely enough, he is now a scientist - I see him on the History Channel every once in a while - and I am the writer. Trying to be anyway.
If I have learned anything in life, it is that you have to have a clear path of what you want and a clear plan of how you intend to get there. You cannot let your life just occur from situation to situation. But what I have also learned, is to let the Universe knock you around. If you are wandering too far afield, even if it's straight at what you think you want, things tend to shift you towards where you need to be going. Don't fight it - roll with it. Ride the tide, like the surfers off the Lighthouse Point.
And always, always stop and pay homage in Buttonwillow.
No time to edit - I am totally getting a parking ticket today. Have a good week, and bust out your old mix tapes!
Monday, August 4, 2014
Sunday, July 27, 2014
I have the right to my own pee, thankyouverymuch
Downtown Grounds
12oz Soy Vanilla Latte
Coffeecake Muffin
If you're one of those people who say that people who receive food stamps or other public assistance should have to pee in cup first, you're wrong. If you say, "Well, I had to pee in a cup for my job - why shouldn't they have to pee for their check?" I say, none of us should be peeing for a check. This is an artificial problem with an unconstitutional solution.
In the Bill of Rights we are explicitly protected from unreasonable search and seizure, to be secure in our person and property. I consider my pee to be both part of my "person" and, once expelled, still my "property." That is why I believe it is explicitly forbidden for the government to demand the right to search it unreasonably. So, the question then is, is it reasonable?
No!
I have a right to be presumed innocent, not to be profiled. The government needs to demonstrate a reasonable belief that I will fail that search, that I have used some kind of illegal drug. There is no data that has ever been presented to demonstrate such a great overuse of drugs among people seeking government assistance that it is necessary to screen for it. In fact, in places where this has been implemented, the statistics have shown dramatically less drug use of any kind compared to the greater population. And that does not appear to be a deterrent effect as the numbers seeking assistance did not significantly drop. The only thing it did produce was a net loss to the states due to the cost of the testing.
And what is the remedial solution for the people who fail the test? Does the state then press charges, remove the children, force the person to enroll in a drug treatment course? To my knowledge, none of that. The sole purpose is to excuse the rest of us from having to give those morally inferior people any help. This topic is not discussed with the tone of those concerned that just giving money to addicts is not really going to help them or the rest of us sacrificing our hard-earned money. This topic is thrown around with hot-blooded contempt at this fictional class of degenerate moochers and scam-artists.
Even if you think that it's not that big of a deal to just pee in a cup and maybe cull a few scammers if we can, then you are not appreciating the real importance of this matter. It is not just that complying with this mandatory drug-testing would be ceding another constitutional protection, it is also accepting as valid the irrational prejudice against people in financial distress. It is shaming innocents. It is another form, if not another facet, of racism.
I am not guilty, and I should not have to be treated as a lesser person, a lesser citizen, just because other people believe that I am.
The only time anyone could be reasonably compelled to pee in a cup to prove they are not under the influence of some intoxicant or other, is if the real concern for public safety is so great that it should outweigh the individual's right to their person and their privacy. If there is a reasonable concern in your occupation that allowing anyone in that job to conduct their work while impaired would result in the harm of others, then yes, I think you could make case for testing as part of their job. Some kind of test to reasonably assure the rest of us that the person is fit to perform their duties, even if that doesn't require a specimen - you can make a case for it. But no citizen should be required to forgo their constitutional rights even in a private employment arrangement. These rights are there for a reason, and that reason doesn't cease to exist when the people involved stop being members of governmental bodies.
Don't let anyone try to turn you against your fellow human beings to keep you distracted for their own purposes. Creating this myth of the immoral poor keeps the slightly-better-offs busy condemning their neighbors, investing so much energy in self-righteous hostility, instead of scrutinizing the greater economic structure. If the so-called middle class are feeling economic strain, it's not because there is a mass movement to exploit the social safety net. Their financial strain stems from an economic structure that produces massive amounts of people in need of the safety net.
And the truth is that the net is so underfunded that it cannot adequately assist all the people who need it. It is not really all that exploitable - I know. I've been in the lines, I've filled out the forms - there is not enough help to go around. We are grateful for all the help we've received - that's the only reason we dared to have two kids instead of just one. But we are in a lot more debt this year than in previous years specifically due to the carried-over loss from sequester cuts to food stamp programs. The money has since been restored, but the legacy of those cuts is carried over at a 20+% interest rate. And really, why should a working family have to receive food stamps to get by, anyway?
Okay, coffee shop is closing. Leaving it there. No edits. Peace and love, my friends.
12oz Soy Vanilla Latte
Coffeecake Muffin
If you're one of those people who say that people who receive food stamps or other public assistance should have to pee in cup first, you're wrong. If you say, "Well, I had to pee in a cup for my job - why shouldn't they have to pee for their check?" I say, none of us should be peeing for a check. This is an artificial problem with an unconstitutional solution.
In the Bill of Rights we are explicitly protected from unreasonable search and seizure, to be secure in our person and property. I consider my pee to be both part of my "person" and, once expelled, still my "property." That is why I believe it is explicitly forbidden for the government to demand the right to search it unreasonably. So, the question then is, is it reasonable?
No!
I have a right to be presumed innocent, not to be profiled. The government needs to demonstrate a reasonable belief that I will fail that search, that I have used some kind of illegal drug. There is no data that has ever been presented to demonstrate such a great overuse of drugs among people seeking government assistance that it is necessary to screen for it. In fact, in places where this has been implemented, the statistics have shown dramatically less drug use of any kind compared to the greater population. And that does not appear to be a deterrent effect as the numbers seeking assistance did not significantly drop. The only thing it did produce was a net loss to the states due to the cost of the testing.
And what is the remedial solution for the people who fail the test? Does the state then press charges, remove the children, force the person to enroll in a drug treatment course? To my knowledge, none of that. The sole purpose is to excuse the rest of us from having to give those morally inferior people any help. This topic is not discussed with the tone of those concerned that just giving money to addicts is not really going to help them or the rest of us sacrificing our hard-earned money. This topic is thrown around with hot-blooded contempt at this fictional class of degenerate moochers and scam-artists.
Even if you think that it's not that big of a deal to just pee in a cup and maybe cull a few scammers if we can, then you are not appreciating the real importance of this matter. It is not just that complying with this mandatory drug-testing would be ceding another constitutional protection, it is also accepting as valid the irrational prejudice against people in financial distress. It is shaming innocents. It is another form, if not another facet, of racism.
I am not guilty, and I should not have to be treated as a lesser person, a lesser citizen, just because other people believe that I am.
The only time anyone could be reasonably compelled to pee in a cup to prove they are not under the influence of some intoxicant or other, is if the real concern for public safety is so great that it should outweigh the individual's right to their person and their privacy. If there is a reasonable concern in your occupation that allowing anyone in that job to conduct their work while impaired would result in the harm of others, then yes, I think you could make case for testing as part of their job. Some kind of test to reasonably assure the rest of us that the person is fit to perform their duties, even if that doesn't require a specimen - you can make a case for it. But no citizen should be required to forgo their constitutional rights even in a private employment arrangement. These rights are there for a reason, and that reason doesn't cease to exist when the people involved stop being members of governmental bodies.
Don't let anyone try to turn you against your fellow human beings to keep you distracted for their own purposes. Creating this myth of the immoral poor keeps the slightly-better-offs busy condemning their neighbors, investing so much energy in self-righteous hostility, instead of scrutinizing the greater economic structure. If the so-called middle class are feeling economic strain, it's not because there is a mass movement to exploit the social safety net. Their financial strain stems from an economic structure that produces massive amounts of people in need of the safety net.
And the truth is that the net is so underfunded that it cannot adequately assist all the people who need it. It is not really all that exploitable - I know. I've been in the lines, I've filled out the forms - there is not enough help to go around. We are grateful for all the help we've received - that's the only reason we dared to have two kids instead of just one. But we are in a lot more debt this year than in previous years specifically due to the carried-over loss from sequester cuts to food stamp programs. The money has since been restored, but the legacy of those cuts is carried over at a 20+% interest rate. And really, why should a working family have to receive food stamps to get by, anyway?
Okay, coffee shop is closing. Leaving it there. No edits. Peace and love, my friends.
Monday, July 21, 2014
No, YOUR opinions on body hair are completely bizarre and stupid.
Mix Bakeshop
12ozDecaf Americano
Boy, nothing kills the mood like finding out your partner finds something about you completely disgusting...
And here's the t.m.i. warning for my squeamish friends and family. Proceed or turn back now. It is in your hands.
So, I was in the shower the other day and I popped my head out to ask my husband if he would care if let my pits go for a few more days since the skin has been a bit irritated lately. His reply gag was almost not comical. Apparently, he's one of those guys that thinks any body hair below the eyebrows is gross on women.
I already knew that he was surprised to initially discover where I did and didn't preserve my natural hair growth. And I knew that he was aware of my ever-so-slight fem-stache (does that make me a hipster?), so I made sure to actually don makeup for the sake of our wedding photos. However, I didn't realize that it was not just new to him among the females he has dated, but that it was actually repellent to him.
This left me with a dilemma in the shower because on the one hand, screw you guy, it's normal for female human animals to have hair under their pits and there are innumerable pictures findable on the internet of beautiful women with hairy pits, albeit mostly from other countries who think we are completely weird about body hair, which we are. On the other hand, wow do I feel fucking unattractive, thanks, hon.
A while ago, I posted a mini-blog (on my old myspace blog) that read approximately:
I have decided to stop shaving my legs. It's a hassle, it's winter, and they never come out much in the summer anyway. Am I worried about repelling guys? Nah. The next guy to get down my pants will have already accepted backfat, stretchmarks, and a low self-opinion - I don't think hairy legs are going to be the deal-breaker.
Guess I was right.
Finding an unshaven woman unattractive is weird and dumb when you think about it. As is finding an uncircumcised penis unattractive. That is unfair to the man possessing that penis because, really, all penises are unattractive. What if men in this country wanted women to start getting female circumcision? What we are already expected to do is bad enough - high heels that deform your feet over time, push-up bras and Spanx and plastic surgery. Imagine parents looking at their infant daughters saying stupid stuff like, "I just don't want men to look at her and be grossed out... let's carve up her cooch, honey!"
I am reminded that I ended a blog with a rhetorical topic question: "Dress tape - your boobs' best friend, or sticky shackles of the Patriarchy?" The answer is both. I am using some right now because, if I weren't, I would have to continually scoop my boobs off to the sides since this bra is so low-cut that the girls will, naturally, slide down the path of least resistance, resulting in what I like to call, "front-butt." Without dress tape holding them back, we'd all be suffering from permanent nip-dysplasia. If bra designers - or the fashion industry at large - knew or cared anything about real boobs, they would never design crap like this.
Any-hoo. Back to the shower.
So, I decided to shave the pits (maybe I'll try growing my pit hair out in the winter), but I left my legs snaggly. I've also been giving my husband crap ever since this (he does graciously allow for female arm hair), but he has also made it perfectly clear that body hair does not get in the way of him loving me, or finding me attractive. So, while it bothers me that it bothers him, I'm standing my ground more or less, and hopefully, in time, he'll get over it.
No edits - good-night!
12ozDecaf Americano
Boy, nothing kills the mood like finding out your partner finds something about you completely disgusting...
And here's the t.m.i. warning for my squeamish friends and family. Proceed or turn back now. It is in your hands.
So, I was in the shower the other day and I popped my head out to ask my husband if he would care if let my pits go for a few more days since the skin has been a bit irritated lately. His reply gag was almost not comical. Apparently, he's one of those guys that thinks any body hair below the eyebrows is gross on women.
I already knew that he was surprised to initially discover where I did and didn't preserve my natural hair growth. And I knew that he was aware of my ever-so-slight fem-stache (does that make me a hipster?), so I made sure to actually don makeup for the sake of our wedding photos. However, I didn't realize that it was not just new to him among the females he has dated, but that it was actually repellent to him.
This left me with a dilemma in the shower because on the one hand, screw you guy, it's normal for female human animals to have hair under their pits and there are innumerable pictures findable on the internet of beautiful women with hairy pits, albeit mostly from other countries who think we are completely weird about body hair, which we are. On the other hand, wow do I feel fucking unattractive, thanks, hon.
A while ago, I posted a mini-blog (on my old myspace blog) that read approximately:
I have decided to stop shaving my legs. It's a hassle, it's winter, and they never come out much in the summer anyway. Am I worried about repelling guys? Nah. The next guy to get down my pants will have already accepted backfat, stretchmarks, and a low self-opinion - I don't think hairy legs are going to be the deal-breaker.
Guess I was right.
Finding an unshaven woman unattractive is weird and dumb when you think about it. As is finding an uncircumcised penis unattractive. That is unfair to the man possessing that penis because, really, all penises are unattractive. What if men in this country wanted women to start getting female circumcision? What we are already expected to do is bad enough - high heels that deform your feet over time, push-up bras and Spanx and plastic surgery. Imagine parents looking at their infant daughters saying stupid stuff like, "I just don't want men to look at her and be grossed out... let's carve up her cooch, honey!"
I am reminded that I ended a blog with a rhetorical topic question: "Dress tape - your boobs' best friend, or sticky shackles of the Patriarchy?" The answer is both. I am using some right now because, if I weren't, I would have to continually scoop my boobs off to the sides since this bra is so low-cut that the girls will, naturally, slide down the path of least resistance, resulting in what I like to call, "front-butt." Without dress tape holding them back, we'd all be suffering from permanent nip-dysplasia. If bra designers - or the fashion industry at large - knew or cared anything about real boobs, they would never design crap like this.
Any-hoo. Back to the shower.
So, I decided to shave the pits (maybe I'll try growing my pit hair out in the winter), but I left my legs snaggly. I've also been giving my husband crap ever since this (he does graciously allow for female arm hair), but he has also made it perfectly clear that body hair does not get in the way of him loving me, or finding me attractive. So, while it bothers me that it bothers him, I'm standing my ground more or less, and hopefully, in time, he'll get over it.
No edits - good-night!
Sunday, July 6, 2014
The Unprotected Sex
Mix Bake Shop
Americano
Anise Shortbread
I don't know where to start. I have found myself shouting and/or writing the word "motherfucker" frequently following the Supreme Court's ruling on the Hobby Lobby case. The anthropomorphic personification of a business arrangement has been granted primacy over my body, my sexuality, and my religious beliefs. The most sexist, slut-shaming-ist corners of a single religion have been given preference over all other interpretations of a loving and tolerant deity - or a loving and tolerant society, for that matter. Pseudoscience has been legitimized by the same method as getting Tinkerbell fly: clap your hands and say, "I do believe that a zygote is a person even before a woman is pregnant!"
Motherfuckers.
This is one of the most ridiculous interpretations of the law that I've seen in my lifetime. First, just because it is "precedent" for corporations to be considered people, doesn't mean the interpretation was ever valid in the first place. That interpretation can, and should, be struck down at any time. But even the liberal justices seem disinclined to rock that boat, so it's going to have to take an act of Congress - the most inactive body of government - to explicitly undo corporate personhood.
Second, no person has the right to deny their employee their due compensation, nor to direct them in what they can or cannot do with their wages. Not for any reason. You can't say, "I'm not giving Phil his paycheck because he smokes and drinks and I have a deep moral opposition to those behaviors - you can't make me pay for it!" You don't get to decide. It's not your money anymore. If Phil put in his time and did the work, then he is now entitled to his compensation, whatever form it takes. Withholding it would be illegal. Unless, apparently, Phil is a Philomena.
Next, by what logic does this particular belief get its special exception? Logically, how does this differ? Because this person behind the corporate person thinks that contraception is a form of abortion? So what? First, that's not accurate. There are numerous articles out there circulating that explain the real science behind all these forms of contraception. Second, abortion is a legal right and should be protected, though it is continually infringed or outright assaulted.
If we all agreed that the abortion of a fetus was murder, then it would not be legal. But we don't. Hence, it is still nominally legal for a woman to decide what happens in and to her own body. To be clear, I don't believe that a fetus is devoid of personhood, but I do not believe that it is of equivalent personhood to that of a born child. And I certainly don't believe that whatever rights it has are superior to those of the mother carrying it. I believe that we need special "grey laws" that try to address the interests of the potential person and the undeniably real person carrying it.
And a woman is more than just a baby incubator. That developing fetus that will one day, if all goes well, become a child is altered continually by the conditions of the mother's condition. And vice versa. The mother's diet, physical activity, her worries, affect the developing fetus, and the very act of carrying the child alters the woman in profound ways. Her chemistry, her mental health, her physicality all change in unknown and dramatic ways. And who best to say whether or not those changes or conditions should be continued for the mother and the one-day-maybe child?
Certainly not the abstract legally-incarnated bogeyman withholding her paycheck.
Here's a little insight for you sexist bosses who want to pretend that depriving a woman of her healthcare will prevent you from being complicit in her "consequence free sex" life. If she can't prevent her unintended pregnancy from happening through not-actually-abortive contraception, she's going to use the money you give her in her paycheck to pay for the real, actual abortion a few weeks later. Which is costlier in every possible way...
And I'm just gonna leave this little link here to one of my earlier blogs, wherein I totally demolish any opposition to the idea of contraception: To the new pope...
As was noted by Justice Ginsberg and others, the Pill and other contraceptive devices are frequently used for other medical purposes (right here, guys!). The not-able-to-get-pregnant feature is a side-effect the woman and her healthcare provider have to take into consideration when deciding whether or not to utilize it. What about other medical treatments that cause temporary or permanent infertility? Should we allow those treatments to be denied as well, even if we could cure somebody's cancer?
The day after this decision came down we immediately saw, not just the hypothetical ways in which this ruling would enable "non-favored" (non-Christian) religious beliefs being imposed on workers by for-profit corporations, but the new actual legal challenges by employers trying to deny workers various rights because of "sincerely held beliefs." Specifically, they're goin' after the gays.
And why is it that sincere religious beliefs are imbued with a variety of protections, but my sincere beliefs founded on reason and empathy get bupkis? How many people just go along with what they were told to believe when they were little? Somebody hundreds or thousands of years ago came up with a story full of dos and don'ts and somebody else just said, "Okay," and, ta-da! - you're exempt. I put years of thoughtful consideration into the guiding principles of my life and it's, "Pay your taxes and burn in hell, hippy!"
Again, motherfuckers.
(Yes, I know many devout people do reflect upon the tenants of their faith. I'm just saying there are millions mailing it in and still getting preferential treatment.)
I have the right to believe and do as I choose, so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others. The burden of being an American is protecting the rights of those you disagree with. It doesn't matter to my employer what I choose to read or watch or listen to, just as long as I'm polite to the customers. It doesn't matter whether or not I eat a vegan diet and go hiking, or if I love bacon and barely leave the house, so long as I can lift box A and put it on shelf B. My employer doesn't get to dock my pay if I get drunk one weekend, make out with some random lesbian at a party, and show up on Monday with a new neck tattoo, so long as I show up and do my job - in a turtleneck.
As other great thinkers have said:
If I wanna take a guy home with me tonight
It's none of your business
And she wanna be a freak and sell it on the weekend
It's none of your business
Now you shouldn't even get into who I'm givin' skins to
It's none of your business
So don't try to change my mind, I'll tell you one more time
It's none of your business
But, alas, sex is not a protected right in this country.
Sexism, however, has just been thrown a box of Trojans and a bottle of Viagra.
Americano
Anise Shortbread
I don't know where to start. I have found myself shouting and/or writing the word "motherfucker" frequently following the Supreme Court's ruling on the Hobby Lobby case. The anthropomorphic personification of a business arrangement has been granted primacy over my body, my sexuality, and my religious beliefs. The most sexist, slut-shaming-ist corners of a single religion have been given preference over all other interpretations of a loving and tolerant deity - or a loving and tolerant society, for that matter. Pseudoscience has been legitimized by the same method as getting Tinkerbell fly: clap your hands and say, "I do believe that a zygote is a person even before a woman is pregnant!"
Motherfuckers.
This is one of the most ridiculous interpretations of the law that I've seen in my lifetime. First, just because it is "precedent" for corporations to be considered people, doesn't mean the interpretation was ever valid in the first place. That interpretation can, and should, be struck down at any time. But even the liberal justices seem disinclined to rock that boat, so it's going to have to take an act of Congress - the most inactive body of government - to explicitly undo corporate personhood.
Second, no person has the right to deny their employee their due compensation, nor to direct them in what they can or cannot do with their wages. Not for any reason. You can't say, "I'm not giving Phil his paycheck because he smokes and drinks and I have a deep moral opposition to those behaviors - you can't make me pay for it!" You don't get to decide. It's not your money anymore. If Phil put in his time and did the work, then he is now entitled to his compensation, whatever form it takes. Withholding it would be illegal. Unless, apparently, Phil is a Philomena.
Next, by what logic does this particular belief get its special exception? Logically, how does this differ? Because this person behind the corporate person thinks that contraception is a form of abortion? So what? First, that's not accurate. There are numerous articles out there circulating that explain the real science behind all these forms of contraception. Second, abortion is a legal right and should be protected, though it is continually infringed or outright assaulted.
If we all agreed that the abortion of a fetus was murder, then it would not be legal. But we don't. Hence, it is still nominally legal for a woman to decide what happens in and to her own body. To be clear, I don't believe that a fetus is devoid of personhood, but I do not believe that it is of equivalent personhood to that of a born child. And I certainly don't believe that whatever rights it has are superior to those of the mother carrying it. I believe that we need special "grey laws" that try to address the interests of the potential person and the undeniably real person carrying it.
And a woman is more than just a baby incubator. That developing fetus that will one day, if all goes well, become a child is altered continually by the conditions of the mother's condition. And vice versa. The mother's diet, physical activity, her worries, affect the developing fetus, and the very act of carrying the child alters the woman in profound ways. Her chemistry, her mental health, her physicality all change in unknown and dramatic ways. And who best to say whether or not those changes or conditions should be continued for the mother and the one-day-maybe child?
Certainly not the abstract legally-incarnated bogeyman withholding her paycheck.
Here's a little insight for you sexist bosses who want to pretend that depriving a woman of her healthcare will prevent you from being complicit in her "consequence free sex" life. If she can't prevent her unintended pregnancy from happening through not-actually-abortive contraception, she's going to use the money you give her in her paycheck to pay for the real, actual abortion a few weeks later. Which is costlier in every possible way...
And I'm just gonna leave this little link here to one of my earlier blogs, wherein I totally demolish any opposition to the idea of contraception: To the new pope...
As was noted by Justice Ginsberg and others, the Pill and other contraceptive devices are frequently used for other medical purposes (right here, guys!). The not-able-to-get-pregnant feature is a side-effect the woman and her healthcare provider have to take into consideration when deciding whether or not to utilize it. What about other medical treatments that cause temporary or permanent infertility? Should we allow those treatments to be denied as well, even if we could cure somebody's cancer?
The day after this decision came down we immediately saw, not just the hypothetical ways in which this ruling would enable "non-favored" (non-Christian) religious beliefs being imposed on workers by for-profit corporations, but the new actual legal challenges by employers trying to deny workers various rights because of "sincerely held beliefs." Specifically, they're goin' after the gays.
And why is it that sincere religious beliefs are imbued with a variety of protections, but my sincere beliefs founded on reason and empathy get bupkis? How many people just go along with what they were told to believe when they were little? Somebody hundreds or thousands of years ago came up with a story full of dos and don'ts and somebody else just said, "Okay," and, ta-da! - you're exempt. I put years of thoughtful consideration into the guiding principles of my life and it's, "Pay your taxes and burn in hell, hippy!"
Again, motherfuckers.
(Yes, I know many devout people do reflect upon the tenants of their faith. I'm just saying there are millions mailing it in and still getting preferential treatment.)
I have the right to believe and do as I choose, so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others. The burden of being an American is protecting the rights of those you disagree with. It doesn't matter to my employer what I choose to read or watch or listen to, just as long as I'm polite to the customers. It doesn't matter whether or not I eat a vegan diet and go hiking, or if I love bacon and barely leave the house, so long as I can lift box A and put it on shelf B. My employer doesn't get to dock my pay if I get drunk one weekend, make out with some random lesbian at a party, and show up on Monday with a new neck tattoo, so long as I show up and do my job - in a turtleneck.
As other great thinkers have said:
If I wanna take a guy home with me tonight
It's none of your business
And she wanna be a freak and sell it on the weekend
It's none of your business
Now you shouldn't even get into who I'm givin' skins to
It's none of your business
So don't try to change my mind, I'll tell you one more time
It's none of your business
But, alas, sex is not a protected right in this country.
Sexism, however, has just been thrown a box of Trojans and a bottle of Viagra.
Monday, June 23, 2014
JQ and Entitlements
Mix Bake Shop
Decaf Americano
Almond Croissant
I should back-up. I realized after trying to explain the last blog to my mom that I didn't explain things very well last time. I did ramble the hell on, and made some points, but even I was pretty confused with the flow of thought upon rereading it. Let me try to be clearer.
The question is, "What are we entitled to?" The answer depends on the context. In a state of nature, the answer is, "Bupkis!" But that is the state of anarchy - of freedom in its purest state. That's not the democratic answer. But interpretations of what democracy is differ, so we'll focus on ours in particular.
All men are created equal, endowed with certain inalienable rights, chiefly: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Paraphrasing, but these are our guiding principles. Everything we set down specifically is derived from this premise. So, then, what logically follows?
The equal protection part seems pretty obvious. Equal protection, equal participation in this society and the government created by it and for it. Should have been obvious from the start. People keep trying so hard to screw this one up, though. It should also be obvious that it's not enough to have equality in theory, but in real practice, too. For example, saying that black people have the right to vote but then creating special rules and circumstances designed to keep them from exercising that right - that directly violates the foundational idea of this social contract.
The harder one is that Pursuit of Happiness part. Interpreting gets a little more fuzzy, but you can still make arguments that tie back to it. I think that's where we derive our New Deal type social benefits. These so-called entitlements - social security, medicaid, unemployment insurance, minimum wage - whether or not they are universal Federal policies, are all attempts to compensate for those anarchic forces that prevent equal participation.
("Naa, naa, naa, na-na-na-nah... hey, Jude..." The music here is so much better than wherever I was during my last blog. Much better for thinking. Where was I?)
Financial insecurity undermines any individual's ability to participate in society, and to pursue their happiness in a real, meaningful way. In theory versus in practice, again. It can also shorten their life, and certainly impact the quality of the life they do have. So there's two founding principles that demand some kind of action to provide financial stability for any J.Q. American. And, no, just "creating more jobs" does not provide financial stability, Mr. or Ms. Politician. Because, as I have said many times now, labor is an inelastic good, you have to take some measures to ensure that those who sell their labor do not have their goods exploited.
Which brings us around again to how minimum wage should be set. But I think I might be over-doing it again. Save it for next time.
Rhetorically, this is about where people scream, "Socialism!" and start thumping their copies of "Atlas Shrugged." Calm your twits, people. Extreme imbalances of power (such as monopolies, for instance) are undemocratic because they limit or eliminate equal protection and participation. That means it's appropriate for the government to intervene in some way to mitigate the disparity. That doesn't mean the government should step in to eliminate all disparity. As long as everyone is protected from infringement upon their liberties, and as long as they have a meaningful chance to participate.
I'm not well-read enough to have a nuanced discussion of what socialism really is. I know enough to say that socialism as Marx and Engels envisioned it has never actually manifested. The governments that have called themselves socialist have actually been authoritarian or despotic. Submitting to a single party rule without the ability to dissent or challenge or change the policies governing you does not produce a society that is construed for the greatest good for the society as a whole. Socialism, if it's about anything, is about about caring for all members of society, not suppressing all members but the few in power in the name social good.
I prefer democracy. I know I'm biased it's what I grew up with. I like to think it makes the most sense. With anarchy, there is free will and only free will, and liberty is not guaranteed. The strong can act upon their will, but if you are the less fortunate, it can make no difference what your will is, if the mighty can keep you from acting upon it. Likewise, the collective strength of a united society could be used to care for the members thereof, or it can be used to blunt their liberties. In either case, your well-being is uncertain.
With democracy, we strive for the middle ground. Enough security gives us the stability we need to exercise our freedom to achieve our will, though we sacrifice just enough that we do not impede the freedoms of others.
That's the idea anyway.
Decaf Americano
Almond Croissant
I should back-up. I realized after trying to explain the last blog to my mom that I didn't explain things very well last time. I did ramble the hell on, and made some points, but even I was pretty confused with the flow of thought upon rereading it. Let me try to be clearer.
The question is, "What are we entitled to?" The answer depends on the context. In a state of nature, the answer is, "Bupkis!" But that is the state of anarchy - of freedom in its purest state. That's not the democratic answer. But interpretations of what democracy is differ, so we'll focus on ours in particular.
All men are created equal, endowed with certain inalienable rights, chiefly: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Paraphrasing, but these are our guiding principles. Everything we set down specifically is derived from this premise. So, then, what logically follows?
The equal protection part seems pretty obvious. Equal protection, equal participation in this society and the government created by it and for it. Should have been obvious from the start. People keep trying so hard to screw this one up, though. It should also be obvious that it's not enough to have equality in theory, but in real practice, too. For example, saying that black people have the right to vote but then creating special rules and circumstances designed to keep them from exercising that right - that directly violates the foundational idea of this social contract.
The harder one is that Pursuit of Happiness part. Interpreting gets a little more fuzzy, but you can still make arguments that tie back to it. I think that's where we derive our New Deal type social benefits. These so-called entitlements - social security, medicaid, unemployment insurance, minimum wage - whether or not they are universal Federal policies, are all attempts to compensate for those anarchic forces that prevent equal participation.
("Naa, naa, naa, na-na-na-nah... hey, Jude..." The music here is so much better than wherever I was during my last blog. Much better for thinking. Where was I?)
Financial insecurity undermines any individual's ability to participate in society, and to pursue their happiness in a real, meaningful way. In theory versus in practice, again. It can also shorten their life, and certainly impact the quality of the life they do have. So there's two founding principles that demand some kind of action to provide financial stability for any J.Q. American. And, no, just "creating more jobs" does not provide financial stability, Mr. or Ms. Politician. Because, as I have said many times now, labor is an inelastic good, you have to take some measures to ensure that those who sell their labor do not have their goods exploited.
Which brings us around again to how minimum wage should be set. But I think I might be over-doing it again. Save it for next time.
Rhetorically, this is about where people scream, "Socialism!" and start thumping their copies of "Atlas Shrugged." Calm your twits, people. Extreme imbalances of power (such as monopolies, for instance) are undemocratic because they limit or eliminate equal protection and participation. That means it's appropriate for the government to intervene in some way to mitigate the disparity. That doesn't mean the government should step in to eliminate all disparity. As long as everyone is protected from infringement upon their liberties, and as long as they have a meaningful chance to participate.
I'm not well-read enough to have a nuanced discussion of what socialism really is. I know enough to say that socialism as Marx and Engels envisioned it has never actually manifested. The governments that have called themselves socialist have actually been authoritarian or despotic. Submitting to a single party rule without the ability to dissent or challenge or change the policies governing you does not produce a society that is construed for the greatest good for the society as a whole. Socialism, if it's about anything, is about about caring for all members of society, not suppressing all members but the few in power in the name social good.
I prefer democracy. I know I'm biased it's what I grew up with. I like to think it makes the most sense. With anarchy, there is free will and only free will, and liberty is not guaranteed. The strong can act upon their will, but if you are the less fortunate, it can make no difference what your will is, if the mighty can keep you from acting upon it. Likewise, the collective strength of a united society could be used to care for the members thereof, or it can be used to blunt their liberties. In either case, your well-being is uncertain.
With democracy, we strive for the middle ground. Enough security gives us the stability we need to exercise our freedom to achieve our will, though we sacrifice just enough that we do not impede the freedoms of others.
That's the idea anyway.
Tuesday, June 10, 2014
J. Q. American
Starbucks
12oz Iced Soy Mocha
Exceptional Americans get too much damn airtime. Yes, it's nice that someone accomplished something that the average person has not, or does not that often. Good for you! The problem is this nonsensical claim that Americans are inherently exceptional, or at least disproportionately so. Just because we have ancestors who often had to endure extraordinary circumstances to get here, does not mean all of our ancestors had some extraordinary genetics which they passed on to us. Desperation and incarceration were also common catalysts for their arrival on these... appropriated lands. Oh, and let us not forget that even idiots do big things sometimes.
The real exceptionalism is not in Americans but in America. In the history of the world, America really does stand out as an ideal. Its essence is not about the select, the elite, the tribe. It is about the everyman. All men are created equal. Period. America has been failing this ideal since Day 1, but the Idea of America has been too strong, too true, to let the hypocrisy remain unchallenged. Too many have suffered under this flag, and continue to suffer, but the Idea is stronger and will win out in the end.
Racism, tribalism (America vs the World), classism, sexism, homophobia, religious intolerance... yep, they're still around. Many Americans still subscribe to those bullshit ideas. But those are un-American ideas, and the sooner we move past them, the better this country, and the world, will be.
So if the quintessential American is the Everyman, what should our policies look like? Why does the rhetoric of today berate people who are average? Why are all of our policies geared towards punishing the Mediocre American? Sure people who innovate and create things help society in general. But that's not everybody, and it can't be. People who argue that all of society benefits when people are forced to achieve more for themselves because we've made minimum wage unlivable have no idea what's going on down at minimum wage level, have no idea what motivates people, and, I guarantee you, are not helping all of society.
We need to set policy based on what we can expect the average American to be and to do. J. Q. American is an orphan and a C-student. We can expect him or her to have no legacy, no family to carry him through his struggles. We cannot expect there to be anyone who will support J.Q. while they finish school, or when they lose their job when they become injured. We cannot expect him or her to have the skills necessary to rise to the next level of retail. Trust me, not everyone can handle being a floor manager - there is a skill to getting yelled at for no reason by a complete stranger. Entry level, or near it, may be the highest J.Q. ever rises, or maybe wants to rise.
What's so wrong about wanting work behind a counter? It's work! Often times it seems, it's more work for the one behind the counter than the one counting the cash ever has to deal with. But it can also be satisfying. I have enjoyed seeing the regulars, sharing laughs, crafting fine espresso drinks (I have not fully mastered latte art, but I did once make a volcano in the foam, I swear). If that's what I love, then why make that unlivable for me? Why force me into a profession I don't love, one I may likely be unsatisfied and unsuccessful at, just to generate more money for the economy? You know, we need happy, satisfied people to have a healthy society, too. And we don't have to maximize someone's financial output to have a healthy economy, either.
Somehow this myth has established itself that minimum wage jobs aren't hard work and don't deserve to be treated as valid worthwhile jobs for a person to hold longterm. People don't stay in unsatisfying, low-wage jobs because they are lazy. There may be an element of self-doubt or fear of leaving stability that holds some people back. It might factor in for some people. But if you would really rather be studying Slavic languages and maybe dream of being a translator someday, chances are you would go to school and study Slavic languages, and maybe international affairs, if you could. But we don't make that tenable for J.Q. American. Maybe a Privileged American with a family who could at least co-sign for a student loan and give them a place to live while they're studying, maybe they could see that dream through. But not J.Q. who has nothing but their abilities and desires.
And let's ask again, why do we charge kids up-front for their education? If it benefits all of us for people to achieve the most they can, to follow their dreams to the extent of their abilities, why don't we make that possible? I just read two bits of data relating to student loans. First, higher education used to be free or nearly free. The only cost to the student was their effort. And the benefit to everyone else was a more knowledgeable, more satisfied, citizenry at least, but who also likely had a better paying job than they would have without their education. Thus, more tax revenue, more consumption for the consumption-centered economy. More stable families with better outcomes and less need for assistance. Wins all around!
Second tidbit, since 1981 the cost of tuition has increased 1200% - without justification. There have been innumerable excuses given, but none pass scrutiny. It has gone up that much because it can. Education is an inelastic good. It's not just that most of us would rather not work low wage jobs at Taco Bell or wherever and are willing to pay up to educate ourselves for a career we would actually enjoy. It's because, increasingly, we cannot afford our low wage jobs - even if we do like them - and we will gamble our future (and our parents' retirement, if we have parents who can co-sign) on the hope that we might find some financial stability. If we can ever get ahead of our student loan debt.
(The baristas have cranked up the overhead play and it's clashing with the Radiohead on my headphones, making me very distracted.)
So let's take a step back and ask how things should be structured for J.Q. American... First, education provided from PreSchool through doctorate, if that's what he or she is up for. All the outcomes for everyone are better. Safety provided - police, paramedic, fire services. No profiling, either, people. And if there's a region where those services are lacking, then we all step in to make sure they are provided adequately, because it is inexcusable that any J.Q. American should be expected to live without basic safety.
Equal and affordable justice provided without bias. No more of this mass incarceration... crime, there's no other word but crime to describe what has happened to our prison system. Except exploitation and Jim Crow, of course.
Healthcare - provided. We need to either treat it as a single-payer public service - fully-funded - or we need to treat it as an inelastic industry, regulate the hell out of it (compared to what it is like today), uncouple it from employment, and make it a non-profit industry. (PS non-profits in general should be under much stricter compensation and profit caps than they are today. No CEO of a non-profit organization should have a 7-figure salary).
Safety, justice, healthcare, and education... All these things have to be fully funded and provided without bias for America to call itself America.
And these services are not inherently at the mercy of markets, no matter how much people with full bellies and gated communities will try to convince you otherwise.
Remember that the value of a dollar is arbitrary. What is not intangible are our resources. So let's ask - is there enough room for all of us? Sure, if not all in the same place at once. Is there enough food for all of us, enough clean water? Currently, the answer is still yes. Are there enough people willing to do the work that is necessary to feed and shelter us? More than enough. We've even got enough people left over willing to educate our children, treat our sicknesses, even provide our digital distractions and our lattes (if that's your thing). So if the natural resources and the human resources are there, why are so many people going without?
It's because we have a distribution problem.
We have to start with the appropriate wage equation, and then we'll work on unraveling the convoluted tax system that has been crafted expressly to allow the wealthy to have even more wealth.
Crap! They're closing. I'll have to pick this up later, specifically for how minimum wage should be crafted, and did I mention J.Q. is agnostic?
Ta for now!
12oz Iced Soy Mocha
Exceptional Americans get too much damn airtime. Yes, it's nice that someone accomplished something that the average person has not, or does not that often. Good for you! The problem is this nonsensical claim that Americans are inherently exceptional, or at least disproportionately so. Just because we have ancestors who often had to endure extraordinary circumstances to get here, does not mean all of our ancestors had some extraordinary genetics which they passed on to us. Desperation and incarceration were also common catalysts for their arrival on these... appropriated lands. Oh, and let us not forget that even idiots do big things sometimes.
The real exceptionalism is not in Americans but in America. In the history of the world, America really does stand out as an ideal. Its essence is not about the select, the elite, the tribe. It is about the everyman. All men are created equal. Period. America has been failing this ideal since Day 1, but the Idea of America has been too strong, too true, to let the hypocrisy remain unchallenged. Too many have suffered under this flag, and continue to suffer, but the Idea is stronger and will win out in the end.
Racism, tribalism (America vs the World), classism, sexism, homophobia, religious intolerance... yep, they're still around. Many Americans still subscribe to those bullshit ideas. But those are un-American ideas, and the sooner we move past them, the better this country, and the world, will be.
So if the quintessential American is the Everyman, what should our policies look like? Why does the rhetoric of today berate people who are average? Why are all of our policies geared towards punishing the Mediocre American? Sure people who innovate and create things help society in general. But that's not everybody, and it can't be. People who argue that all of society benefits when people are forced to achieve more for themselves because we've made minimum wage unlivable have no idea what's going on down at minimum wage level, have no idea what motivates people, and, I guarantee you, are not helping all of society.
We need to set policy based on what we can expect the average American to be and to do. J. Q. American is an orphan and a C-student. We can expect him or her to have no legacy, no family to carry him through his struggles. We cannot expect there to be anyone who will support J.Q. while they finish school, or when they lose their job when they become injured. We cannot expect him or her to have the skills necessary to rise to the next level of retail. Trust me, not everyone can handle being a floor manager - there is a skill to getting yelled at for no reason by a complete stranger. Entry level, or near it, may be the highest J.Q. ever rises, or maybe wants to rise.
What's so wrong about wanting work behind a counter? It's work! Often times it seems, it's more work for the one behind the counter than the one counting the cash ever has to deal with. But it can also be satisfying. I have enjoyed seeing the regulars, sharing laughs, crafting fine espresso drinks (I have not fully mastered latte art, but I did once make a volcano in the foam, I swear). If that's what I love, then why make that unlivable for me? Why force me into a profession I don't love, one I may likely be unsatisfied and unsuccessful at, just to generate more money for the economy? You know, we need happy, satisfied people to have a healthy society, too. And we don't have to maximize someone's financial output to have a healthy economy, either.
Somehow this myth has established itself that minimum wage jobs aren't hard work and don't deserve to be treated as valid worthwhile jobs for a person to hold longterm. People don't stay in unsatisfying, low-wage jobs because they are lazy. There may be an element of self-doubt or fear of leaving stability that holds some people back. It might factor in for some people. But if you would really rather be studying Slavic languages and maybe dream of being a translator someday, chances are you would go to school and study Slavic languages, and maybe international affairs, if you could. But we don't make that tenable for J.Q. American. Maybe a Privileged American with a family who could at least co-sign for a student loan and give them a place to live while they're studying, maybe they could see that dream through. But not J.Q. who has nothing but their abilities and desires.
And let's ask again, why do we charge kids up-front for their education? If it benefits all of us for people to achieve the most they can, to follow their dreams to the extent of their abilities, why don't we make that possible? I just read two bits of data relating to student loans. First, higher education used to be free or nearly free. The only cost to the student was their effort. And the benefit to everyone else was a more knowledgeable, more satisfied, citizenry at least, but who also likely had a better paying job than they would have without their education. Thus, more tax revenue, more consumption for the consumption-centered economy. More stable families with better outcomes and less need for assistance. Wins all around!
Second tidbit, since 1981 the cost of tuition has increased 1200% - without justification. There have been innumerable excuses given, but none pass scrutiny. It has gone up that much because it can. Education is an inelastic good. It's not just that most of us would rather not work low wage jobs at Taco Bell or wherever and are willing to pay up to educate ourselves for a career we would actually enjoy. It's because, increasingly, we cannot afford our low wage jobs - even if we do like them - and we will gamble our future (and our parents' retirement, if we have parents who can co-sign) on the hope that we might find some financial stability. If we can ever get ahead of our student loan debt.
(The baristas have cranked up the overhead play and it's clashing with the Radiohead on my headphones, making me very distracted.)
So let's take a step back and ask how things should be structured for J.Q. American... First, education provided from PreSchool through doctorate, if that's what he or she is up for. All the outcomes for everyone are better. Safety provided - police, paramedic, fire services. No profiling, either, people. And if there's a region where those services are lacking, then we all step in to make sure they are provided adequately, because it is inexcusable that any J.Q. American should be expected to live without basic safety.
Equal and affordable justice provided without bias. No more of this mass incarceration... crime, there's no other word but crime to describe what has happened to our prison system. Except exploitation and Jim Crow, of course.
Healthcare - provided. We need to either treat it as a single-payer public service - fully-funded - or we need to treat it as an inelastic industry, regulate the hell out of it (compared to what it is like today), uncouple it from employment, and make it a non-profit industry. (PS non-profits in general should be under much stricter compensation and profit caps than they are today. No CEO of a non-profit organization should have a 7-figure salary).
Safety, justice, healthcare, and education... All these things have to be fully funded and provided without bias for America to call itself America.
And these services are not inherently at the mercy of markets, no matter how much people with full bellies and gated communities will try to convince you otherwise.
Remember that the value of a dollar is arbitrary. What is not intangible are our resources. So let's ask - is there enough room for all of us? Sure, if not all in the same place at once. Is there enough food for all of us, enough clean water? Currently, the answer is still yes. Are there enough people willing to do the work that is necessary to feed and shelter us? More than enough. We've even got enough people left over willing to educate our children, treat our sicknesses, even provide our digital distractions and our lattes (if that's your thing). So if the natural resources and the human resources are there, why are so many people going without?
It's because we have a distribution problem.
We have to start with the appropriate wage equation, and then we'll work on unraveling the convoluted tax system that has been crafted expressly to allow the wealthy to have even more wealth.
Crap! They're closing. I'll have to pick this up later, specifically for how minimum wage should be crafted, and did I mention J.Q. is agnostic?
Ta for now!
Monday, June 2, 2014
Print isn't dead, damn it.
Home
Almondmilk Cafe Mocha
Super Salad (minus the avocado)
If you follow me on Facebook, then you've probably already seen this. I went on a mini rant a few days ago so I'm just mailing it in this week. And then I shall go to conquer the Junk Drawer Room! All hail the hanging file box!
Before I paste and format, however, a little update... I have printed up all my blogs through mid-April with intentions of making a book out of them. Or most of them. With possible supplementing from journals. I think. My working title is, "Philosophist." I would greatly, greatly appreciate any feedback, things you'd like to see, things that could go, suggestions for getting it published/marketing it. I'm ready to go bookstore to bookstore with galleys or extracts to try to get booksellers (my brethren and sistren) to fall in love with it and promote it through staff selections.
It could happen.
Anyway, here's my former bookseller rant about e-books...
Print is not dead.
There will always be a market for the tangible read, be it a magazine, book, or newspaper... or birthday card, or menu, or save-your-soul pamphlet handed to you on a street corner. Yes, the technology is shifting things towards digital, but it's not eradicating the desire for print. Not for all of us.
It is a fundamentally different interaction to read something on a digital screen instead of reading something from the bounced light off a page. Even the color of the page, the sheen, the gloss of it, makes a big difference. Digital screens are wonderful for a range of reasons, but they can only emulate that analog interface so much. The brain just responds differently, we have a different emotional sense depending on whether we are reading a story in a magazine on a train, or reading the same story on our smartphone (possibly on the potty).
And it matters more or less for different people. For instance, some folks I've known with learning disabilities can barely process anything that is printed on white paper and have had to use special blue paper for their class assignments. Still, many of us will take what comes and roll with it and be fine.
I'm just saying that it's not exactly the same story as with the music industry and the advent of digital music. You might make an argument that the quality of the recording is affected by the recording medium (vinyl, CD, 8-track, wax cylinder), but you are ultimately listening to music the same way: through speakers. Crappy speakers, Bose speakers - but still speakers. Reading on a device, however, beyond the lighting, is just very different than a book in the hand.
And a digital dog-ear is not going to placate me, thankyouverymuch.
The bottom line, though, is that the costs are changing and the business model has to change with it. It is sad that, in so many cases, print media is being dumped instead of adapted. It would be depressing if the print market that survives becomes a novelty for the wealthy. The sticking point, to me, seems to be the cost of publishing as it has been done. What we need is a technological advance in one-off publishing.
Imagine walking into your favorite bookstore... Maybe the shelves are stocked with "review copies," or maybe they have kiosks where you can browse digital editions. Maybe you can bring in your Nook or whatever and get a digital sampler. And if you decide to purchase ye old fashioned paper book, the bookstore can then ring you up (first!) and go to the back and print off a decent Trade Paper or Mass Market edition of the book for you. Or do it up front in the display windows, like when they make fudge in a candy shop. With everything those 3D printers are making, you figure there's got to be some way to make it happen for books.
I don't know how things will have to change. I don't know how to manage the costs to make it all cost-effective. I do know that resources for printing are going to become more and more scarce, and publishing tens or hundreds of thousands of books per run (especially when so many titles die each year) is just not feasible. But I also know that, while many of us are content to live a life of mixed media, we don't all want to go all-digital.
Thank you. Curmudgeon, out!
Almondmilk Cafe Mocha
Super Salad (minus the avocado)
If you follow me on Facebook, then you've probably already seen this. I went on a mini rant a few days ago so I'm just mailing it in this week. And then I shall go to conquer the Junk Drawer Room! All hail the hanging file box!
Before I paste and format, however, a little update... I have printed up all my blogs through mid-April with intentions of making a book out of them. Or most of them. With possible supplementing from journals. I think. My working title is, "Philosophist." I would greatly, greatly appreciate any feedback, things you'd like to see, things that could go, suggestions for getting it published/marketing it. I'm ready to go bookstore to bookstore with galleys or extracts to try to get booksellers (my brethren and sistren) to fall in love with it and promote it through staff selections.
It could happen.
Anyway, here's my former bookseller rant about e-books...
Print is not dead.
There will always be a market for the tangible read, be it a magazine, book, or newspaper... or birthday card, or menu, or save-your-soul pamphlet handed to you on a street corner. Yes, the technology is shifting things towards digital, but it's not eradicating the desire for print. Not for all of us.
It is a fundamentally different interaction to read something on a digital screen instead of reading something from the bounced light off a page. Even the color of the page, the sheen, the gloss of it, makes a big difference. Digital screens are wonderful for a range of reasons, but they can only emulate that analog interface so much. The brain just responds differently, we have a different emotional sense depending on whether we are reading a story in a magazine on a train, or reading the same story on our smartphone (possibly on the potty).
And it matters more or less for different people. For instance, some folks I've known with learning disabilities can barely process anything that is printed on white paper and have had to use special blue paper for their class assignments. Still, many of us will take what comes and roll with it and be fine.
I'm just saying that it's not exactly the same story as with the music industry and the advent of digital music. You might make an argument that the quality of the recording is affected by the recording medium (vinyl, CD, 8-track, wax cylinder), but you are ultimately listening to music the same way: through speakers. Crappy speakers, Bose speakers - but still speakers. Reading on a device, however, beyond the lighting, is just very different than a book in the hand.
And a digital dog-ear is not going to placate me, thankyouverymuch.
The bottom line, though, is that the costs are changing and the business model has to change with it. It is sad that, in so many cases, print media is being dumped instead of adapted. It would be depressing if the print market that survives becomes a novelty for the wealthy. The sticking point, to me, seems to be the cost of publishing as it has been done. What we need is a technological advance in one-off publishing.
Imagine walking into your favorite bookstore... Maybe the shelves are stocked with "review copies," or maybe they have kiosks where you can browse digital editions. Maybe you can bring in your Nook or whatever and get a digital sampler. And if you decide to purchase ye old fashioned paper book, the bookstore can then ring you up (first!) and go to the back and print off a decent Trade Paper or Mass Market edition of the book for you. Or do it up front in the display windows, like when they make fudge in a candy shop. With everything those 3D printers are making, you figure there's got to be some way to make it happen for books.
I don't know how things will have to change. I don't know how to manage the costs to make it all cost-effective. I do know that resources for printing are going to become more and more scarce, and publishing tens or hundreds of thousands of books per run (especially when so many titles die each year) is just not feasible. But I also know that, while many of us are content to live a life of mixed media, we don't all want to go all-digital.
Thank you. Curmudgeon, out!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)