***********************
I'm taking a pause for the end of the old year, and the start of the new one. Make a difference in 2014, not just for yourself, but others. Organize, contribute, and VOTE! And have a safe and Happy New Year.
Monday, December 30, 2013
Utah Isn't Just Legalizing Gay Marriage
They're also leading the way in ending homelessness, as it turns out.
Even George Will Sees A Future For Alternative Energy
I'm sure it's because of some deep-pocket Republican connection but, if he wants to use his puerile column to promote fusion energy, it's fine with me.
The War Over Marriage Equality Is Over
I mean, if it's legal in Utah, where can it be stopped? Nowhere, I hope. But that won't stop the bad guys from trying.
Conservatives ALWAYS Like Government, When They're The Ones That Need It
It was true during the Bush stock market crash, and it's no less true about Obamacare.
A Pope I'm Tempted To Like, At Least
I have very strong negative feelings about the Catholic Church. Not the parishioners, but the institution, which has exalted celibacy to the point of providing an unintentional shelter for child abusers. But I confess to being fascinated by Pope Francis, who seems to be completely serious about preaching a gospel that focuses on poverty and the need to fight it. I emphasize the word "need" here, because past Popes--indeed, many Christians--have tended to treat this aspect of the gospel as sort of a recommendation by Jesus, and not as an essential (perhaps the essential) part of His mission and ministry. Instead, they focus on abortion and gay marriage--about which Jesus had nothing to say at all.
I would, frankly, like to see Francis tackle the issue of child abuse within the Church with greater transparency and energy. But, in the meantime, I derive great comfort from the discomfort that he is giving to conservative Catholics in this country. It's long overdue.
I should have known that any Pope who shares my father's first name can't be all bad. Go Francis!
I would, frankly, like to see Francis tackle the issue of child abuse within the Church with greater transparency and energy. But, in the meantime, I derive great comfort from the discomfort that he is giving to conservative Catholics in this country. It's long overdue.
I should have known that any Pope who shares my father's first name can't be all bad. Go Francis!
Sunday, December 29, 2013
Lessons From A Theater Tragedy
Perhaps it would be more accurate to call the recent partial collapse of the Apollo Theater in London a near-tragedy. Although a large number of people were hurt, and some seriously enough to be sent to the hospital, no one was killed. And for that, above all, we should be exceedingly thankful.
As things stand at the moment, there is no clear explanation as to why the collapse happened. It is, however, a well-known fact that many of the older theaters in London's West End have suffered from years of deferred maintenance--and the Apollo, by all reports, was no exception.
Which is why, when I saw the news about the collapse, and after my concerns about fatalities were put to rest, my theater-preservation mind came to one very quick conclusion: that it would not be long before the tear-'em-down crown would be out in full force.
And I was not completely disappointed. This piece, from The Guardian, takes a somewhat two-faced attitude toward the subject, alternately talking about investment in old theaters while raising questions about their real value in the modern world. Likewise, this piece from The Atlantic makes the case against historic theaters without quite coming out with a call for the bulldozers, There's something to be said about the fact that, even after a crisis like the Apollo collapse, no one quite wants to use it as an excuse to level cultural and architectural history.
Except, as it turns out, if the someone in question is Andrew Lloyd Webber. A former owner of both the Apollo and its next-door theater neighbor, the Lyric, Webber here argues for tearing both theaters down and replacing them with new, more modern theaters (presumably, ones more to Webber's Tory-leaning, profit-gushing tastes). Leaving aside the intriguing question of what exactly Webber knew about the theaters when he sold them, and how much of their poor condition accrued on his watch, his diatribe against his former buildings and their counterparts on the West End overlooks the fundamental question: what can be done to make owning and maintaining any theater affordable?
Whether a theater is old or new, modernized or otherwise, the economics of the theatre make owning an operating such a structure daunting. Theater in any form, traditional or otherwise, is a labor-intensive and capital intensive art form that competes with other media that have many more avenues for expanding their markets and spreading out their costs. Any theater can only give one performance at a time to a very limited number of people, while a movie or TV show can move through a number of market mechanisms to an ever-increasing audience around the world--theaters, broadcast channels, cable, satellite, the Internet, and who knows what else may come in the future. This dilemma exist for new legitimate houses as well as older ones--which is why, over the past several decades, almost no new legitimate theaters have been built without some form of subsidy attached to it.
Once you accept the fact that no legitimate theater can function without some form of subsidy, the question then becomes this: what should we subsidize? Do we want to subsidize modern theater buildings, with all the functionality of an airport lounge and half the charm? Or do we want to subsidize our history, our heritage, our sense of a style and beauty that has its original roots in a specific era but, in terms of its impact on the public, is positively timeless?
As for how? There are, truthfully, lots of ways, and finding them merely requires the right combination of creativity and will. In New York, Broadway theater owners have been able for a number of years to sell the air rights over their theaters, and thereby able to maximize the market value of their land while obtaining the funds needed to maintain their landmarked properties. Perhaps something along these lines could be used to ensure the future economic and physical viability of their West End counterparts.
In any event, safety does not require the leveling of history. Let's hope, for history's sake and London's sake, that it finds a way to maintain its amazing stock of historic theaters for years to come.
As things stand at the moment, there is no clear explanation as to why the collapse happened. It is, however, a well-known fact that many of the older theaters in London's West End have suffered from years of deferred maintenance--and the Apollo, by all reports, was no exception.
Which is why, when I saw the news about the collapse, and after my concerns about fatalities were put to rest, my theater-preservation mind came to one very quick conclusion: that it would not be long before the tear-'em-down crown would be out in full force.
And I was not completely disappointed. This piece, from The Guardian, takes a somewhat two-faced attitude toward the subject, alternately talking about investment in old theaters while raising questions about their real value in the modern world. Likewise, this piece from The Atlantic makes the case against historic theaters without quite coming out with a call for the bulldozers, There's something to be said about the fact that, even after a crisis like the Apollo collapse, no one quite wants to use it as an excuse to level cultural and architectural history.
Except, as it turns out, if the someone in question is Andrew Lloyd Webber. A former owner of both the Apollo and its next-door theater neighbor, the Lyric, Webber here argues for tearing both theaters down and replacing them with new, more modern theaters (presumably, ones more to Webber's Tory-leaning, profit-gushing tastes). Leaving aside the intriguing question of what exactly Webber knew about the theaters when he sold them, and how much of their poor condition accrued on his watch, his diatribe against his former buildings and their counterparts on the West End overlooks the fundamental question: what can be done to make owning and maintaining any theater affordable?
Whether a theater is old or new, modernized or otherwise, the economics of the theatre make owning an operating such a structure daunting. Theater in any form, traditional or otherwise, is a labor-intensive and capital intensive art form that competes with other media that have many more avenues for expanding their markets and spreading out their costs. Any theater can only give one performance at a time to a very limited number of people, while a movie or TV show can move through a number of market mechanisms to an ever-increasing audience around the world--theaters, broadcast channels, cable, satellite, the Internet, and who knows what else may come in the future. This dilemma exist for new legitimate houses as well as older ones--which is why, over the past several decades, almost no new legitimate theaters have been built without some form of subsidy attached to it.
Once you accept the fact that no legitimate theater can function without some form of subsidy, the question then becomes this: what should we subsidize? Do we want to subsidize modern theater buildings, with all the functionality of an airport lounge and half the charm? Or do we want to subsidize our history, our heritage, our sense of a style and beauty that has its original roots in a specific era but, in terms of its impact on the public, is positively timeless?
As for how? There are, truthfully, lots of ways, and finding them merely requires the right combination of creativity and will. In New York, Broadway theater owners have been able for a number of years to sell the air rights over their theaters, and thereby able to maximize the market value of their land while obtaining the funds needed to maintain their landmarked properties. Perhaps something along these lines could be used to ensure the future economic and physical viability of their West End counterparts.
In any event, safety does not require the leveling of history. Let's hope, for history's sake and London's sake, that it finds a way to maintain its amazing stock of historic theaters for years to come.
Freedom Of Speech, Or Freedom For MY Speech?
That's the question all of us should be asking in the wake of the recent "Duck Dynasty" kerfuffle. Should Phil Robertson have been suspended by the A&E network from appearing on the hit reality show, because he gave an interview in which he made remarks about African-Americans and gays that place him squarely somewhere in the 19th century? For that matter, should he have been "un-suspended," as he was within days of the suspension?
Let's be clear about a few things. First and foremost, there is no First Amendment issue here. You don't think so? Then stop reading this blog post right now, and don't come back until you've read the First Amendment, and maybe (if you're feeling ambitious) some of the case law interpreting it. The First Amendment protects speech against suppression or limitation by the government, or an agent acting on its behalf. It has absolutely no application to a relationship between two private parties, such as a cable network and a family. Or, at the most, it has limited application in those situations, such as whether or not a "whistleblower" statute can be enacted against workplace misconduct. Apart from such a limited application, however, A&E and the Robertsons have what amount in common law to a master-servant contract that can be governed by any terms they agree upon. And, if A&E's contract with the Robertsons was such that it did not allow them to take exception to statements or actions to which decent people would object, then shame on it, as well as its lawyers.
That doesn't mean, however, that I agree with the suspension. First, A&E knew they weren't getting into bed with The Best And The Brightest when they agreed to put this show on the air. Second, Robertson's interview was not part of the show itself, even though the interview undoubtedly never would have happened without the celebrity aura that the show conferred on the family. But, most of all, the network just gave Robertson an opportunity he didn't deserve to play the martyr card, an opportunity taken advantage of not only by the Robertsons but also their fellow-traveling publicity whores in the right-wing community--in particular, the one who knows how to write, but not to read. I so love to write about her without mentioning her name; it's the torment that she deserves.
What should A&E done instead? Publicly condemn and otherwise distance themselves from his remarks, of course. Terminate the show as soon as its contract had run. And vowed that the next time they create a reality show about a family, it'll be about an African-American family. Or a gay family. Or both. The antidote to free speech badly used is free speech well used.
But the publicity whores' commentary is not without a valuable lesson. Their vehement, overheated and generally incoherent First Amendment arguments on the Robertsons' behalf prove one point: from the vast, right-wing conspiracy's perspective, it's civil rights for we, but not for thee. Ask any liberal who's been on the receiving end of bad treatment because of their own political "incorrectness." Ask the Dixie Chicks, or Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins. See if the publicity whores came to their aid. You should not be surprised that the answer will be no.
Because, to a conservative, freedom of speech is freedom for their speech. Don't ever let them get away with making that stick. Your own freedom of speech will be forfeit. And you will have given it away.
Let's be clear about a few things. First and foremost, there is no First Amendment issue here. You don't think so? Then stop reading this blog post right now, and don't come back until you've read the First Amendment, and maybe (if you're feeling ambitious) some of the case law interpreting it. The First Amendment protects speech against suppression or limitation by the government, or an agent acting on its behalf. It has absolutely no application to a relationship between two private parties, such as a cable network and a family. Or, at the most, it has limited application in those situations, such as whether or not a "whistleblower" statute can be enacted against workplace misconduct. Apart from such a limited application, however, A&E and the Robertsons have what amount in common law to a master-servant contract that can be governed by any terms they agree upon. And, if A&E's contract with the Robertsons was such that it did not allow them to take exception to statements or actions to which decent people would object, then shame on it, as well as its lawyers.
That doesn't mean, however, that I agree with the suspension. First, A&E knew they weren't getting into bed with The Best And The Brightest when they agreed to put this show on the air. Second, Robertson's interview was not part of the show itself, even though the interview undoubtedly never would have happened without the celebrity aura that the show conferred on the family. But, most of all, the network just gave Robertson an opportunity he didn't deserve to play the martyr card, an opportunity taken advantage of not only by the Robertsons but also their fellow-traveling publicity whores in the right-wing community--in particular, the one who knows how to write, but not to read. I so love to write about her without mentioning her name; it's the torment that she deserves.
What should A&E done instead? Publicly condemn and otherwise distance themselves from his remarks, of course. Terminate the show as soon as its contract had run. And vowed that the next time they create a reality show about a family, it'll be about an African-American family. Or a gay family. Or both. The antidote to free speech badly used is free speech well used.
But the publicity whores' commentary is not without a valuable lesson. Their vehement, overheated and generally incoherent First Amendment arguments on the Robertsons' behalf prove one point: from the vast, right-wing conspiracy's perspective, it's civil rights for we, but not for thee. Ask any liberal who's been on the receiving end of bad treatment because of their own political "incorrectness." Ask the Dixie Chicks, or Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins. See if the publicity whores came to their aid. You should not be surprised that the answer will be no.
Because, to a conservative, freedom of speech is freedom for their speech. Don't ever let them get away with making that stick. Your own freedom of speech will be forfeit. And you will have given it away.
R.I.P., "Motormouth"
It;s hard, if you're a baseball fan, to accept the game in its current, overpriced, uncompetitive, drug-laden condition. Doing so, however, becomes almost unbearable when you think about the players from decades ago--not just the exceptional ones, but the everyday ones who played hard and found ways to make themselves indispensable to both their fellow players and their fans.
Paul Blair was one such player. If you saw him play, as I had the privilege of doing, you didn't see all around greatness, but you saw someone who got the most out of his ability to read fly balls and, most of all, his speed. As much as any other player, Blair showed that in baseball, speed is both an offensive and a defensive weapon. I'll never forget the inside-the-park, grand-slam home run I watched him hit against the Kansas City Royals. And Orioles pitchers who played with him will never forget the ways in which his fielding lowered their ERAs.
And, in his personal life, he was nothing less than a total class act. It is somehow fitting that he died while participating in a bowling tournament for charity. R.I.P., Paul. Thanks for the memories. And thanks for the personal example of how to live.
Paul Blair was one such player. If you saw him play, as I had the privilege of doing, you didn't see all around greatness, but you saw someone who got the most out of his ability to read fly balls and, most of all, his speed. As much as any other player, Blair showed that in baseball, speed is both an offensive and a defensive weapon. I'll never forget the inside-the-park, grand-slam home run I watched him hit against the Kansas City Royals. And Orioles pitchers who played with him will never forget the ways in which his fielding lowered their ERAs.
And, in his personal life, he was nothing less than a total class act. It is somehow fitting that he died while participating in a bowling tournament for charity. R.I.P., Paul. Thanks for the memories. And thanks for the personal example of how to live.
Why Hillary Clinton Should Breath A Sigh Of Relief
Because the Republican most likely to run well against her in 2016, Governor Fatslob of New Jersey, is in the process of being exposed for the criminal bully that he really is. Take a look.
His 60%-reelection was all about exploiting the corrupt nature of New Jersey politics, not popularity. Nobody should think otherwise. But, if the GOP wants to kid itself into doing so, it's fine with me.
His 60%-reelection was all about exploiting the corrupt nature of New Jersey politics, not popularity. Nobody should think otherwise. But, if the GOP wants to kid itself into doing so, it's fine with me.
What To Do With Those Subsidies Big Oil Doesn't Need
Here's one suggestion, anyway: devote some portion of them to subsidizing the infrastructure needed for electric cars. The development of that infrastructure could remove the last major obstacle to true energy independence in this country. It's worth a try. Socialism for the rich, on the other hand, isn't.
Think "Free Enterprise" Can Replace The Post Office?
Better think again. Oops. Looks like Obamacare's not the only major enterprise struggling to get its act together. Good thing the Post Office is constitutionally-mandated. Someone needs to remind the Republicans of that.
Two States Down, 48 To Go
When it comes to electing real socialists, that is, politicians who don't run away from the label like it's poison. First Vermont and now Washington State (or, more specifically, Seattle). It's not quite sea-to-shining-sea, but it's a nice start.
Sorry GOP. The defining issue of 2014 isn't going to be "Obamacare." It's going to be the minimum wage.
Sorry GOP. The defining issue of 2014 isn't going to be "Obamacare." It's going to be the minimum wage.
Two Places To Begin In Talking To The Tea Party
First, ask them to look at what their 1-percent friends want to do with unemployment benefits.
Next, show them that the worst socialists in the country are the ones on Wall Street.
THEN ask them if they still want to join forces with the 1-percent in playing a lottery that the 1-percent rigs against them.
Next, show them that the worst socialists in the country are the ones on Wall Street.
THEN ask them if they still want to join forces with the 1-percent in playing a lottery that the 1-percent rigs against them.
"Remember Who The Real Enemy Is"
If you're a "Hunger Games" fan, you know that those are words of advice given to Katniss Everdeen as she prepares to go back into the arena in "Catching Fire," the second book (and movie) of the series, which show how a future ruling elite manipulate and intimate a divided population by forcing their teenage children to fight to the death.
Here in 21st-century America, however, we have our own Hunger Games, minus the gladitorial trappings. Instead of divide-and-conquer games, we have divide-and-conquer politics. And we, the people, cheerful participate in them, through our greed and laziness.
How does it work? Well, it's best summed up in a joke I've seen on the Internet a number of times, in one version or another. Basically, it goes something like this: a 1-percenter, a Tea Partier, and a union representative attend a party, and are presented with a plate of 10 cookies. The 1-percenter immediately takes nine of the cookies, turns to the Tea Partier and says "Watch out for that union guy--he's after your cookie!"
Funny, right? Except for the fact that the Tea Partier buys it. He desperately grabs the last cookie from the union rep, and leaves the most productive member of the group without reward for his labors.
Because it's time to face reality. The 1-percent make money by gambling, while the union workers (and those who want to be union workers) create the real wealth, through skill, teamwork, and persistence that often challenges the odds.
And the Tea Partier? He or she lives in a state that is largely depending on Federal tax dollars from elsewhere. He or she lives in a state with low levels of accomplishment and high levels of social dysfunction. He or she is, if anything, even more oppressed than the union workers, because they earn fewer wages and have far less access to public services (especially education) that could and should make a material difference in their lives. For these reasons, the Tea Partiers should be natural allies of the unions, the only proven form of organization to make the lives of average citizens better.
But the Tea Partier throws in his or her lot with the 1-percent. Why? Because they think the 1-percent has gotten what the 1-percent deserves, through either hard work or skill? No, they would agree with the unions that the 1-percent are just people who've won the investment lottery. The difference, in the case of the Tea Partier, is that the 1-percent has gotten what the Tea Partier thinks he or she deserves--a chance to win that same lottery. This is why the cut-spending-and-taxes argument works so well with Tea Partiers--they think that it gives them the same lottery ticket that the 1-percent have. Many of them share the 1-percent's aversion to hard work, talent and perserverance. Why, those things are for suckers. Why not roll the dice with the wealth created by others, and take a chance on winning it all?
And therein lies the rub: All of us CAN'T win it all. The 1-percent know that, and spend their time playing political games that have the effect of dividing the Tea Parties from the unions, and prevent both groups from combining into a powerful force that could build a rational society based on shared wealth and responsibility. After all, if that were to ever happen, casino capitalism would come to a screeching halt, and in its place would be a market-based society in which access to basic needs and opportunities for advancement could be equally shared.
But this will never happen, until those of us in the union-based, progressive side of politics start to engage the Tea Partiers in a dialogue about how wealth works, and show them that wealth isn't created by a handful of investor-kings but by all of us. Adam Smith's book is called "The Wealth of Nations," not "The Wealth of a Privileged Few." Smith understood, far better than his modern-day acolytes, the need for laws and collective activity to generate wealth. Doubt me? Try something: read him. And then talk to the nearest Tea Partier about how the creation and accumulation of wealth really works. A lot of it has to do with values that are not only union values, but Christian ones as well. It's not an accident that Solidarity, the union that helped end the Cold War, was as much about Christianity as it was about workers' rights.
We need to take a page or two from "The Hunger Games." Start talking to our fellow "tributes in the arena," the Tea Partiers, and convince them that progressive values are traditional, even religious, values as well. If we can do that, perhaps, one day--together--we can learn to fight the real enemy. For my part, I hope and pray to do my part with this in 2014, and I hope and pray that you will do yours as well.
Here in 21st-century America, however, we have our own Hunger Games, minus the gladitorial trappings. Instead of divide-and-conquer games, we have divide-and-conquer politics. And we, the people, cheerful participate in them, through our greed and laziness.
How does it work? Well, it's best summed up in a joke I've seen on the Internet a number of times, in one version or another. Basically, it goes something like this: a 1-percenter, a Tea Partier, and a union representative attend a party, and are presented with a plate of 10 cookies. The 1-percenter immediately takes nine of the cookies, turns to the Tea Partier and says "Watch out for that union guy--he's after your cookie!"
Funny, right? Except for the fact that the Tea Partier buys it. He desperately grabs the last cookie from the union rep, and leaves the most productive member of the group without reward for his labors.
Because it's time to face reality. The 1-percent make money by gambling, while the union workers (and those who want to be union workers) create the real wealth, through skill, teamwork, and persistence that often challenges the odds.
And the Tea Partier? He or she lives in a state that is largely depending on Federal tax dollars from elsewhere. He or she lives in a state with low levels of accomplishment and high levels of social dysfunction. He or she is, if anything, even more oppressed than the union workers, because they earn fewer wages and have far less access to public services (especially education) that could and should make a material difference in their lives. For these reasons, the Tea Partiers should be natural allies of the unions, the only proven form of organization to make the lives of average citizens better.
But the Tea Partier throws in his or her lot with the 1-percent. Why? Because they think the 1-percent has gotten what the 1-percent deserves, through either hard work or skill? No, they would agree with the unions that the 1-percent are just people who've won the investment lottery. The difference, in the case of the Tea Partier, is that the 1-percent has gotten what the Tea Partier thinks he or she deserves--a chance to win that same lottery. This is why the cut-spending-and-taxes argument works so well with Tea Partiers--they think that it gives them the same lottery ticket that the 1-percent have. Many of them share the 1-percent's aversion to hard work, talent and perserverance. Why, those things are for suckers. Why not roll the dice with the wealth created by others, and take a chance on winning it all?
And therein lies the rub: All of us CAN'T win it all. The 1-percent know that, and spend their time playing political games that have the effect of dividing the Tea Parties from the unions, and prevent both groups from combining into a powerful force that could build a rational society based on shared wealth and responsibility. After all, if that were to ever happen, casino capitalism would come to a screeching halt, and in its place would be a market-based society in which access to basic needs and opportunities for advancement could be equally shared.
But this will never happen, until those of us in the union-based, progressive side of politics start to engage the Tea Partiers in a dialogue about how wealth works, and show them that wealth isn't created by a handful of investor-kings but by all of us. Adam Smith's book is called "The Wealth of Nations," not "The Wealth of a Privileged Few." Smith understood, far better than his modern-day acolytes, the need for laws and collective activity to generate wealth. Doubt me? Try something: read him. And then talk to the nearest Tea Partier about how the creation and accumulation of wealth really works. A lot of it has to do with values that are not only union values, but Christian ones as well. It's not an accident that Solidarity, the union that helped end the Cold War, was as much about Christianity as it was about workers' rights.
We need to take a page or two from "The Hunger Games." Start talking to our fellow "tributes in the arena," the Tea Partiers, and convince them that progressive values are traditional, even religious, values as well. If we can do that, perhaps, one day--together--we can learn to fight the real enemy. For my part, I hope and pray to do my part with this in 2014, and I hope and pray that you will do yours as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)