This one is called Sociology of Work. It officially started September 27, but some unknown thing happened and the instructor has been replaced, a new adventure for me. All the same, I really enjoy sociology courses, and work especially fascinates me. I have done the first week's work and begun the second week. So far, so good.
This started out to be a communication blog, but I have had life adventures and regular posting was not in the cards. I am going to take a shot at reviving it as a general-life blog for friends who want to keep up with my story. I will also post my thoughts and ideas here, which will probably involve politics, religion, and other controversies.
Monday, October 4, 2010
Sunday, August 8, 2010
"Popular Culture" class
Please be advised that I will be using this blog for a "popular culture" class for the next six weeks. Apologies to any regular readers.
Saturday, April 3, 2010
Trusting souls
Dislcaimer: I am ordained through the Universal Life Church. I don't encourage you to blindly take my word any more than I want you to do that with anyone else.
Well, now it's the Pope. He's only accused of letting it go on, but now there's no level of the Catholic Church not touched by the child-molesting scandals. Just to add to the cringe factor, a preacher close to "Il Papa" recently compared the continued accusations of priestly assaults on children to centuries of persecution of the Jews. The self-righteousness is no news in child-molesting cases, especially by clergy, but this level of it truly brings nausea. There's still more underneath, though, and it's not limited to Catholics or to Christians in general. This failing doesn't really have anything to do with religious beliefs; it's about belief in people, not gods.
Mixing faith with money and power is a mistake that plagues the human race. Starting from fields that focus on money, we can at least suggest regulating banks, brokers and insurance companies so that we don't have to depend upon the honesty of the Bernie Madoffs of this world. Even at that level, the people don't want to accept regulation, but we can talk about it and in many places succeed in regulating rather than blindly trusting.
Moving right along to power, political regimes vary widely. Whereever one person or group is in charge, corruption and abuse are predictable. Having two parties, as in the USA, improves the situation somewhat because the parties will keep an eye on each other in order to get ammunition for election campaigns. Sometimes it's possible to pass regulations that limit the excesses of campaigns and other abuses, and occasionally those laws require transparency, leading to the possibility of exposure of abuses outside the framework of parties by "cause" organizations or people with a personal interest. Other countries with more parties and/or more transparency may do a better job; I would need extensive research to know.
Then there's faith. Oh, boy. People who claim to speak for God, the gods, or whatever you worship can be sincere. It gets more difficult to stay that way when they realize that the aura of deity can conceal any number of past sins and current issues. A priest in Wisconsin took young boys to his cabin in the woods for some private time, as did the priest in my home town with his own cabin, both many years ago now. Were either of these men a banker, politician or ordinary person, the parents could have threatened exposure based simply on the appearance or possibility of molesting, and that very likely would have happened. Clergy has the cover of the parents' blind belief not in their gods but in the people who claim to represent those gods. The priests' activities came to light decades later. The one in Wisconsin died well before anyone asked questions, and he had long ago been removed from ministry over the same issue, but apparently the Church did not see fit to follow up or warn anyone about him. He had a more comfortable life than almost any other child molester simply because he was clergy.
School teachers, these days, are watched closely. Scout leaders too. It's past time to bring organizations of religion (any religion) into the clear light of day. We need to keep believing in the values of education, nature and spirituality. We just can't go on trusting anyone blindly.
Well, now it's the Pope. He's only accused of letting it go on, but now there's no level of the Catholic Church not touched by the child-molesting scandals. Just to add to the cringe factor, a preacher close to "Il Papa" recently compared the continued accusations of priestly assaults on children to centuries of persecution of the Jews. The self-righteousness is no news in child-molesting cases, especially by clergy, but this level of it truly brings nausea. There's still more underneath, though, and it's not limited to Catholics or to Christians in general. This failing doesn't really have anything to do with religious beliefs; it's about belief in people, not gods.
Mixing faith with money and power is a mistake that plagues the human race. Starting from fields that focus on money, we can at least suggest regulating banks, brokers and insurance companies so that we don't have to depend upon the honesty of the Bernie Madoffs of this world. Even at that level, the people don't want to accept regulation, but we can talk about it and in many places succeed in regulating rather than blindly trusting.
Moving right along to power, political regimes vary widely. Whereever one person or group is in charge, corruption and abuse are predictable. Having two parties, as in the USA, improves the situation somewhat because the parties will keep an eye on each other in order to get ammunition for election campaigns. Sometimes it's possible to pass regulations that limit the excesses of campaigns and other abuses, and occasionally those laws require transparency, leading to the possibility of exposure of abuses outside the framework of parties by "cause" organizations or people with a personal interest. Other countries with more parties and/or more transparency may do a better job; I would need extensive research to know.
Then there's faith. Oh, boy. People who claim to speak for God, the gods, or whatever you worship can be sincere. It gets more difficult to stay that way when they realize that the aura of deity can conceal any number of past sins and current issues. A priest in Wisconsin took young boys to his cabin in the woods for some private time, as did the priest in my home town with his own cabin, both many years ago now. Were either of these men a banker, politician or ordinary person, the parents could have threatened exposure based simply on the appearance or possibility of molesting, and that very likely would have happened. Clergy has the cover of the parents' blind belief not in their gods but in the people who claim to represent those gods. The priests' activities came to light decades later. The one in Wisconsin died well before anyone asked questions, and he had long ago been removed from ministry over the same issue, but apparently the Church did not see fit to follow up or warn anyone about him. He had a more comfortable life than almost any other child molester simply because he was clergy.
School teachers, these days, are watched closely. Scout leaders too. It's past time to bring organizations of religion (any religion) into the clear light of day. We need to keep believing in the values of education, nature and spirituality. We just can't go on trusting anyone blindly.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Party pooper re health insurance changes
Yep, they changed the laws about health insurance. I can expect a fine if I don't buy health insurance in 2014, assuming I live that long without health insurance. From an insurer viewpoint, profits from the 30 or so million new customers ought to offset the new rules. Please note that the new laws do nothing for prices and do not require very many specific coverages. Of course, the long lag time before the laws take effect gives insurers time to escape unwelcome new provisions by using the same scare tactics and heavy applications of cash that sabotaged the current bills.
Congress failed at two very important things. First and worst, they did not remove the antitrust exemption that health insurers enjoy. All of these politicians going on and on about the value of competition are either lying or grossly ignorant. Health insurers are exempt by law from competition.
More people are aware of the failure to include a public option in the changes. This also relates to competition. A publicly funded health care plan would (a) probably reduce costs a bit due to government entities not needing to make profits and (b) give the private companies a real incentive to compete that is lacking today. Such a large operation would also (c) provide leverage in negotiating with pharmaceutical companies, hospital chains and other large providers of care.
All in all, as an uninsured American, I don't see this as helpful. It's just a political gesture, "sound and fury signifying nothing."
Congress failed at two very important things. First and worst, they did not remove the antitrust exemption that health insurers enjoy. All of these politicians going on and on about the value of competition are either lying or grossly ignorant. Health insurers are exempt by law from competition.
More people are aware of the failure to include a public option in the changes. This also relates to competition. A publicly funded health care plan would (a) probably reduce costs a bit due to government entities not needing to make profits and (b) give the private companies a real incentive to compete that is lacking today. Such a large operation would also (c) provide leverage in negotiating with pharmaceutical companies, hospital chains and other large providers of care.
All in all, as an uninsured American, I don't see this as helpful. It's just a political gesture, "sound and fury signifying nothing."
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Bernanke: A new used car
Bernanke: Too big to fail
Posted using ShareThis
This link goes to a CNN Money article pointing out that Wall Street will "punish" the country by dropping market values should Ben Bernanke not be appointed to a second term. It goes on to give a coherent history explaining exactly why he must not be re-appointed.
Bernanke captained the ship that sailed full speed ahead onto the rocks where it remains. He then played a leading part in rewarding the bankers who steered it there. The fact that Wall Street now has the power to punish the US government ought to be a message: these banks are too big not to fail. This country, or any other, cannot afford business interests big enough to overpower the government. Bernanke has ably represented the bankers against the interests of the United States. This must stop.
Specifically, Bernanke's central offense, as chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, has been to keep interest rates inappropriately low, leading to the credit bubble that collapsed and brought the entire economy down with it. Bernanke still insists that Federal policy did not cause the crash, thus clearly demonstrating that he has yet to learn from his mistake.
Bernanke's more current offense is the bailout. He did his best to pour over $700 billion into Wall Street, resulting primarily in obscene bonus payments to the bankers who are the agents of the disaster. Meanwhile, lending to small businesses, the best chance of reviving the economy, has dropped dramatically. Those specific decisions have been made by the people who are receiving bonuses for no reason that I can imagine.
Obviously, I disagree with the article's conclusion that Bernanke should be retained because he "has been at the helm for so long." The ship is on the rocks; the captain insists upon keeping it there. Get rid of him. Let's find somebody to patch up the holes and get afloat again.
Posted using ShareThis
This link goes to a CNN Money article pointing out that Wall Street will "punish" the country by dropping market values should Ben Bernanke not be appointed to a second term. It goes on to give a coherent history explaining exactly why he must not be re-appointed.
Bernanke captained the ship that sailed full speed ahead onto the rocks where it remains. He then played a leading part in rewarding the bankers who steered it there. The fact that Wall Street now has the power to punish the US government ought to be a message: these banks are too big not to fail. This country, or any other, cannot afford business interests big enough to overpower the government. Bernanke has ably represented the bankers against the interests of the United States. This must stop.
Specifically, Bernanke's central offense, as chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, has been to keep interest rates inappropriately low, leading to the credit bubble that collapsed and brought the entire economy down with it. Bernanke still insists that Federal policy did not cause the crash, thus clearly demonstrating that he has yet to learn from his mistake.
Bernanke's more current offense is the bailout. He did his best to pour over $700 billion into Wall Street, resulting primarily in obscene bonus payments to the bankers who are the agents of the disaster. Meanwhile, lending to small businesses, the best chance of reviving the economy, has dropped dramatically. Those specific decisions have been made by the people who are receiving bonuses for no reason that I can imagine.
Obviously, I disagree with the article's conclusion that Bernanke should be retained because he "has been at the helm for so long." The ship is on the rocks; the captain insists upon keeping it there. Get rid of him. Let's find somebody to patch up the holes and get afloat again.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Supreme Court Enables Corporate Corruption
The Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS), in its alleged wisdom, has decided that corporations may use essentially unlimited money to influence candidates' elections under the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
The legal issue here is that US law treats corporations as if they were individual people. This is ludicrous. People create corporations as devices to make money. For-profit corporations, by law, serve the sole purpose of increasing the wealth of shareholders. They cannot have any sort of moral values above greed. None. Thus, treating a corporate entity as if it should have concern for its customers, neighbors or environment, as most individual people do, makes no sense. Such concern, carried out in action, could bring about shareholder lawsuits.
Corporations differ from persons in another important way. Most corporations have money, and thus power, that only an elite few individuals can even imagine. They can invest in politicians freely, and the return on those investments far exceeds any honest way of making a living. It is the sole duty of corporations to make money, and using politicians is the easiest way of doing so in many cases. A wealthy individual might invest in politicians in order to benefit the town where he lives, to forward a personal cause he favors or for the feeling of power. Corporations do it strictly for the money.
Two appropriate responses to this decision come to mind. The first and the more obvious, lies in making the status of corporations better fitted to their function. We need to recognize that companies cannot be responsible for their own ethical behavior; too many conficting factors inhibit that. Regulation obviously fits the bill here, but with additions such as a "death penalty" (dissolution) for those corporate entities that repeatedly violate the laws affecting them. Another good idea is to hold directors and/or executives criminally responsible for the behavior of the corporate entities they control.
The more important response to the Supreme Court decision is to change our election financing system. In this, we already lag behind most of the developed world. Put simply, the politicians will respond to the people only to the degree that the people hold the power over their election. So long as elections are financed by corporations and wealthy donors, the odds of that remain as slim under the Democrats as they were under the Republicans. The chances of third parties gaining power under the current system and being able to change it are even smaller. Implementing one form or another of public financing will result in major government budget savings as contributors lose the power to buy pork barrel projects worth orders of magnitude more than the contributions, to block reforms aimed at making them pay taxes and to commit various other acts of greed. Other special interests would also find themselves less favored by the politicians they currently elect. For one example, a variety of conservative Christian organizations recieved $206 for providing "abstinence-only" sex education in 2006. They would probably would have to recognize the abundant evidence that their product does not serve any of its stated purposes. They would lose that money unless they can produce believable progress. Results would begin to count. All in all, public election financing is both cheaper and a far better investment than bridges to nowhere, oil industry subsidies or "abstinence only" sex education ever have been.
The legal issue here is that US law treats corporations as if they were individual people. This is ludicrous. People create corporations as devices to make money. For-profit corporations, by law, serve the sole purpose of increasing the wealth of shareholders. They cannot have any sort of moral values above greed. None. Thus, treating a corporate entity as if it should have concern for its customers, neighbors or environment, as most individual people do, makes no sense. Such concern, carried out in action, could bring about shareholder lawsuits.
Corporations differ from persons in another important way. Most corporations have money, and thus power, that only an elite few individuals can even imagine. They can invest in politicians freely, and the return on those investments far exceeds any honest way of making a living. It is the sole duty of corporations to make money, and using politicians is the easiest way of doing so in many cases. A wealthy individual might invest in politicians in order to benefit the town where he lives, to forward a personal cause he favors or for the feeling of power. Corporations do it strictly for the money.
Two appropriate responses to this decision come to mind. The first and the more obvious, lies in making the status of corporations better fitted to their function. We need to recognize that companies cannot be responsible for their own ethical behavior; too many conficting factors inhibit that. Regulation obviously fits the bill here, but with additions such as a "death penalty" (dissolution) for those corporate entities that repeatedly violate the laws affecting them. Another good idea is to hold directors and/or executives criminally responsible for the behavior of the corporate entities they control.
The more important response to the Supreme Court decision is to change our election financing system. In this, we already lag behind most of the developed world. Put simply, the politicians will respond to the people only to the degree that the people hold the power over their election. So long as elections are financed by corporations and wealthy donors, the odds of that remain as slim under the Democrats as they were under the Republicans. The chances of third parties gaining power under the current system and being able to change it are even smaller. Implementing one form or another of public financing will result in major government budget savings as contributors lose the power to buy pork barrel projects worth orders of magnitude more than the contributions, to block reforms aimed at making them pay taxes and to commit various other acts of greed. Other special interests would also find themselves less favored by the politicians they currently elect. For one example, a variety of conservative Christian organizations recieved $206 for providing "abstinence-only" sex education in 2006. They would probably would have to recognize the abundant evidence that their product does not serve any of its stated purposes. They would lose that money unless they can produce believable progress. Results would begin to count. All in all, public election financing is both cheaper and a far better investment than bridges to nowhere, oil industry subsidies or "abstinence only" sex education ever have been.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)