Odds and Sods #56

Do you believe this is the 56th installment of ODDS AND SODS? I say this as an excuse for running out of snappy titles for them. (I promise, I will have one by next time!)

---

Garry Wills' incisive piece in the New York Review of Books, perfectly titled Contraception’s Con Men, is required reading for anyone who wants to understand the naked propaganda-war that is going on right now:

The bishops’ opposition to contraception is not an argument for a “conscience exemption.” It is a way of imposing Catholic requirements on non-Catholics. This is religious dictatorship, not religious freedom.

Contraception is not even a religious matter. Nowhere in Scripture or the Creed is it forbidden. Catholic authorities themselves say it is a matter of “natural law,” over which natural reason is the arbiter—and natural reason, even for Catholics, has long rejected the idea that contraception is evil. More of that later; what matters here is that contraception is legal, ordinary, and accepted even by most Catholics. To say that others must accept what Catholics themselves do not is bad enough. To say that President Obama is “trying to destroy the Catholic Church” if he does not accept it is much, much worse.

To disagree with Catholic bishops is called “disrespectful,” an offense against religious freedom. That is why there is a kind of taboo against bringing up Romney’s Mormonism. But if Romney sincerely believed in polygamy on religious grounds, as his grandfather did, he would not even be considered for the presidency—any more than a sincere Christian Scientist, who rejects the use of medicine, would be voted for to handle public health care. Yet a man who believes that contraception is evil is an aberrant from the American norm, like the polygamist or the faith healer.

Good reading, and an impressive 212 comments, also worth your time.

~*~

On History: Tariq Ali and Oliver Stone In Conversation was surprisingly watchable, informative and free of dogma:

Filmmaker Oliver Stone and author and filmmaker Tariq Ali present their thoughts on the politics of history and what they consider to be hidden aspects of American history. Their discussion ranges across several topics, from American involvement against the Russian Revolution to a profile of the labor union, the Industrial Workers of the World. Oliver Stone and Tariq Ali speak at the New York Public Library in New York City.

(You can watch it here.)

~*~

Media Matters reports: Rush Limbaugh Issues Statement Regarding His 3-Day Misogynistic Attack On Sandra Fluke. Meanwhile, one of Fluke's opportunistic classmates saw her big chance for blogger fame, and decided to pile on. Conservative suck-up Angela Morabito of The College Conservative proudly announces that Fluke "doesn't even speak for all skanks! She only speaks for the skanks who don't want to take responsibility for their choices."

Hm. Is she actually calling herself a skank in that sentence, or is she just a lousy writer? You decide.

~*~

William Burroughs, photo from Start With Typewriters.



Upon reading William Burroughs on Led Zeppelin (reprinted from the legendary CRAWDADDY, 1975), the first thing any writer thinks is DAMN, I wish I could write like that guy.

Some of the best bits:

Leaving the concert hall was like getting off a jet plane.

...

From the viewpoint of magic, no death, no illness, no misfortune, accident, war or riot is accidental. There are no accidents in the world of magic. And will is another word for animate energy. Rock stars are juggling fissionable material that could blow up at any time… “The soccer scores are coming in from the Capital…one must pretend an interest,” drawled the dandified Commandante, safe in the pages of my book; and as another rock star said to me, “YOU sit on your ass writing–I could be torn to pieces by my fans, like Orpheus.”

I found Jimmy Page equally aware of the risks involved in handling the fissionable material of the mass unconcious.

...

Jimmy told me that Aleister Crowley’s house has very good vibes for anyone who is relaxed and receptive. At one time the house had also been the scene of a vast chicken swindle indirectly involving George Sanders, the movie actor, who was able to clear himself of any criminal charges. Sanders committed suicide in Barcelona, and we both remembered his farewell note to the world: “I leave you to this sweet cesspool.”

I told Jimmy he was lucky to have that house with a monster in the front yard. What about the Loch Ness monster? Jimmy Page thinks it exists. I wondered if it could find enough to eat, and thought this unlikely–it’s not the improbability but the upkeep on monsters that worries me. Did Aleister Crowley have opinions on the subject? He apparently had not expressed himself.

...

We talked about Wilhelm Reich’s orgone accumulator, and I showed him plans for making this device, which were passed along to me by Reich’s daughter. Basically the device is very simple, consisting of iron or steel wool on the inside and organic material on the outside. I think this was highly important discovery. Recently a scientist with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration announced an “electrical cell” theory of cancer that is almost identical to Reich’s cancer theory put forth 25 years ago. He does not acknowledge any indebtedness to Reich. I showed Jimmy the orgone box I have here, and we agreed that orgone accumulators in pyramid form and/or using magnetized iron could be much more powerful.

Yes, it's all like that. Read the whole thing.

~*~

Assorted:

Left Side of the Aisle #46 - Virginia kills "Personhood" bill (Lotus - Surviving a Dark Time)

Ayn Rand Worshippers Should Face Facts: Blue States Are the Providers, Red States Are the Parasites (AlterNet)

'Snob' control: Karen Santorum guides husband on gaffe (Politico)

Notorious Nigerian witch-hunter to preach in the US (The Humanist)

March Forth With Hope (March with Hope Foundation)

Is Gordon Gekko an inevitability of capitalism?

The richest one percent of this country owns half our country's wealth, five trillion dollars. One third of that comes from hard work, two thirds comes from inheritance, interest on interest accumulating to widows and idiot sons and what I do, stock and real estate speculation. It's bullshit. You got ninety percent of the American public out there with little or no net worth. I create nothing. I own. We make the rules, pal. The news, war, peace, famine, upheaval, the price per paper clip. We pick that rabbit out of the hat while everybody sits out there wondering how the hell we did it. Now you're not naive enough to think we're living in a democracy, are you buddy? It's the free market. And you're a part of it. You've got that killer instinct. Stick around pal, I've still got a lot to teach you.

~*~

The new law of evolution in corporate America seems to be survival of the unfittest. Well, in my book you either do it right or you get eliminated. In the last seven deals that I've been involved with, there were 2.5 million stockholders who have made a pretax profit of 12 billion dollars. Thank you. I am not a destroyer of companies. I am a liberator of them! The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind. And greed, you mark my words, will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA. Thank you very much.

--both quotes from Gordon Gekko (Michael Douglas) in the landmark movie WALL STREET (1987) written by Stanley Weiser and Oliver Stone.

~*~

Great thread at Amber Rhea's blog, has me thinking more deep thoughts about capitalism, as I was a couple of weeks ago.

Can capitalism be good? Or is nasty greedhead Gordon an inevitability?

Amber writes:

I’ve been wanting to write a post for a while about my thoughts on capitalism, socialism, and finding a balance. It’s no secret that I do not identify as an “anti-capitalist,” yet I pal around w/ a fair amount of people who do. Basically, I’m too much of an evil capitalist for the liberal Commie tree-huggers I know, and too much of a liberal Commie tree-hugger for the Libertarians I know.

Anyway, one thing I’ve always had trouble wrapping my head around wrt anti-capitalism is, what would a non-capitalist society/economy look like? How would it function on a day to day basis? What would life be like for the average person? How would people be compensated? How would personal property be handled? What would the role of the state be? (because I know some anti-capitalists are also pretty anti-state, which to me seems to leave an impasse with an anarchist Utopia as the only logical conclusion.)

And she got some interesting replies. Joseph comments:

The term “Capitalism” itself is often kind of meaningless in these conversations - different people using it to mean whatever they don’t like at the time. Are we talking about free trade? Mode of production? Some mysterious end-product of the Protestant Work ethic?

When I think of Capitalism, I think of a particular system of production in which people may own capital and work to maximize the profits they gain from that capital. There are lots of great things about this system - it has helped lift many people out of poverty. But it’s not the end-all, either. Left without any regulation, the pursuit of profit may lead to things like sweatshops, bank collapses in which people lose all of their savings, and environmental catastrophe.

If I support regulating these excesses, am I then an anti-Capitalist, for not allowing that system of production have free reign? Depends on your point of view, I guess.

There is also some back-and-forth with a cool person named Reverend Bob--who quickly gets right to the heart of the thorny issue:

(a) A corporation laying off X,000 workers and losing their skills forever is good business.

(b) A corporation outsourcing Y% of its labor, which not only loses its manufacturing capability but creates competitors, is good business.

(c) A corporation cutting Z pennies off of dividends to stockholders is not only bad business, it’s unthinkable.

Why?

And finally here are MY comments--predictably, the most long-winded of anybody's:

Once upon a time, Edmund Burke and other conservatives believed that successful capitalists owed something to the poor and the community… remember that Scrooge was considered by his fellow businessmen to be an asshole. He was not considered typical; Dickens did not mean for him to be taken that way. He was the “bad capitalist”… the tag I use on my blog (when I chronicle capitalist abuses) is “bad capitalism”–not simply “capitalism” in general. I am aware that much innovation, personal liberation and lifestyle-improvements have come about due to capitalism, and I am also aware that some people do not seem to be able to participate in capitalist enterprises without criminality and open theft.

Lenin believed that capitalism would always mean theft… his famous remark “give em enough rope” (that capitalism would sell the rope to hang itself) reflected that. But various socialists I have admired such as Michael Harrington, thought there was a place for an ethical, democratic capitalism, answerable to the people.

What happened during the Reagan era is that Gordon Gekko was born… “greed is good”…and suddenly, the whole approach to making money changed. It became a proudly cutthroat and almost solitary activity. The community was secondary. The idea that capitalism can be innovative and upgrade our collective standard of living, which was the driving concept of the 50s (new dishwashers! cars! laundry soap!) took a backseat to the concept of PERSONAL wealth. Suddenly, it was about YOU as an INDIVIDUAL, not about the country or the community getting ahead as a group. “I’m all right Jack!” took over. And this kind of capitalism is ALL FUCKED UP–but keep in mind, it is Reaganism/Thatcherism… not necessarily what capitalism can be or ought to be.

And now, we have a royal mess, caused by Wall Street greedheads, virtually all of whom came of age (or came to the height of their financial power) during the Gordon Gekko era. So, people are wondering if capitalism can ever be forward-thinking again, working to improve ALL of our standards of living, or is it just something to destroy the environment and kill off more polar bears? We are at a crossroads. What will we choose? (I am forever-hopeful that since we chose Obama, we know what kind of trouble we are in. And could therefore fix it. Maybe.)

It will take innovation and new minds to create a new kind of capitalism that benefits everyone. But there are vestiges of Reaganism left, the people who think any questioning of capitalism makes one an automatic unpatriotic socialist. No, not true… I work in capitalism, and I am aware that it can do much good. The supplement/alternative medicine industry is a good example of how people can learn to take their health into their own hands; our business is virtually all consumer-driven. So is the entertainment industry. Other capitalist businesses/industries? Not so much.

(I've added some links in my above comment, for further discussion.)

Is Gordon Gekkoism the inevitable result of a profit-oriented system? Or can profit be used to advance good causes?

I think we all know that CAN ideally happen--but will people be that generous? Are folks able to be that generous and collective-oriented in our turbulent economic times? Or does this kind of money-nervousness just make us all worse?

Comments?

EDIT: This subject is also on my mind as local greedhead-swine John M. Sterling, chairman of HomeGold, goes on trial here in South Carolina. He swindled regular folks out of about $278 million and it has taken six years to get him to trial.