America: aka Fantasy Island

The Fantasy on the Left is that we can be a strong, healthy nation without Giant Corporations.

On the Right, is the Fantasy that the Profit Motive is the only thing that counts; that there is something intrinsic in those who would climb to the top of the Corporate ladder which would keep them aware of their responsibility to the Society which which made that ladder even possible.

In the Moderate middle is the Fantasy that the ideological War between those two opposing views will somehow work itself out for the best, and that they, the little guy/gal, the "average person" is best off not paying any mind to Idiots who Rule from Ivory Towers and Legislative Domes.

I don't really think that John Edwards understands this all that well.

None the less, I'm leaning his way as what he does propose is at least, though not all that much, a decent compromise between two seminal extremes of human understanding.

Time will tell, eh...


  1. What's especially ironic is that a lot of the most rabid laissez faire proponents are also evangelicals, and that's about as un-Christian of a philosophy as you can have.

    The simple balance to me is to have a market where corporations can succeed, but can't fuck over their workers/the environment/taxpayers willy-nilly.

  2. I dont see the irony in the fact that they are evangelicals (although thats always ironic!)as much as that they are Ok with things like oil subsidies and military sponsored security for oil resources while claiming to support free market.

    But they will cry punishment if a liberal even suggests that oil companies owe the public a few bucks! (you commies just hate profit!)

    They use free market to stop environmental protection, but not when it comes to bidding on war contracts.

    Odd, no? SELECTIVE CAPITALISM, I call it!!!!

    I think it SHOULD be less about polar forces squabbling over ideology, more about clarity of the government's responsibility.

    They do work for us, ya know!

    Is the role of government to protect, to regulate, to interfere?

    What happens if we interfere?

    Take the housing issue. People are yelling for the government to bail people out, to stop the foreclosures. Should they? Should they REALLY?

    It depends on if you think the problem is from exploitation, or people biting off more than they could chew from a materialistic desire to own mcmansions they could not really afford....

    Even if you think it IS exploitation, the question becomes about whether or not that is the government's responsibility to remedy. What about "buyer beware"?

    This is where people often get tangled, on the real examples where we are really forced to look at the practical implications of our economic views.

    I say the rubric must include a real look at the way we answer the question: On what basis do we regulate?

    Really Bains it applies to most divisive issues.

    When do we regulate the economy? (ie raise or lower rates, back loans, give aid to cities)

    When do we regulate relationships? (gay marriage, sodomy laws)

    When do we regulate business behavior? (pollution, labor safety, etc)

    Anyway interesting post as usual!

  3. I agree with your left, right, middle ideas, but I’d like to go on record to say: I don’t think the polar ends will somehow just work things out. I expect the polar ends will continue to polarize. What I’d like to see is more people realizing that the real majority of people are moderate by default, and to leave political ideology at home long enough to engage in (learn?) practical negotiation. In a perfect world, the swing of the pendulum back and forth between left and right shouldn’t be something to be feared, as both have their place. It’s almost like we need to learn political Taoism, using the natural momentum of things to our best outcome with the least amount of wasted energy.

  4. namaste y'all!

    (You KNOW me. I'll be back for more when work allows... {sigh})

  5. Edwards is the only one who had the guts to admit he war wrong for voting for the war, instead of making excuses like Hillary.

  6. he sounds believable.

    i wonder what will be made of his expensive hair cut blowing in the wind. you know that americans are full of shit when they have time to worry with the cost of his hair cut. the news makes my ears bleed.

  7. The Fantasy on the Left is that we can be a strong, healthy nation without Giant Corporations.

    Actually, I think a hell of an argument can be made that smaller businesses are much better for society overall. Theodore Roosevelt thought so, and so do I.

    HP, BP, Exxon/Mobil, Wally.... they ain't really doing schmucks like me many favors.

  8. oh yea, been meaning to say i love the new blog look

  9. Like the new blog look, MB. I'm considering doing the same thing, now that Dikkii's Diatribe is 10 years old.

    Edwards is that rare politician - one who can admit to being wrong without needing to spin it.

    If I was American, he'd get my vote just for that.

  10. Just a couple o' quick replies, mostly just to say "hey yo!".

    But also...

    Dig it, Brando. Evangelinos enter into all sorts of ironies by starting where they do: taking seriously/literally a set of mythological texts. Once one starts down such a road, they're doomed to walking in intellectual circles. Pleasant enough at times, but impossibly ineffectual when it comes to dealing with Life and change.

    Lynn, ! lol! Well, the next post was instigated by your comment. ;-} Right here I'll just merge my response to you & QP and say that I think we do need to have a far more flexible approach to the problems our evolving society faces. Sometimes bigger, stronger governmental institutions are needed to survive/overcome for a period of flux, mostly I think the system does run more smoothly without too much intervention.

    If I had One answer on how to make better determinations of when is when and which is which, I'd say it'd be to make Washington D.C. a No-Lobbying Zone except for a few times each year. Maybe a total of 6 weeks (not entirely arbitrary, that #.) Politicians don't need Issue Insiders selling ideas to them in order to understand the issues. They need to Objectively study the issues, then make up their minds based on the facts, not upon someone's willingness to pay for them to do so in a certain way.

    I'd like to see him get that growed into a ponytail, Tonya. THEN I think it'd be worth a media mention. ;-}

    Well, JR, that's kind of my point. The plethora of Giant Corporations are in great part a result of all the smaller business initiating ideas. But they are frequently ideas which need far too much capital to get off the ground in any fundamentally productive sense.

    We would NOT have the high level of computing technology we do today w/o an "HP". I can't imagine a way for there to be 1/10 the number of personal computer users which there at today w/o Microsoft. Literally thousands of people ARE better off financially thanks to freakin' Walmart.

    ALL of those megaCorps have SERIOUS drawbacks, piratical issues (them, not just those they accuse of such) and environment hostilities to answer for/rectify. Outlawing them hurts everyone more than it could possibly help us all though. FIXING their problems through sane regulation and trial and error approaches leaves us ALL with the benefits they've provided - and the HAVE and DO provide benefits to us all! - without feeding us into their financial maws. Those fixes will also allow the innovation of the small to continue to add to the whole.

    Oceans without Great White sharks? Whales? Giant Squid?

    Sure, but they'd be nasty assed, algae gardens, man. Nasty and suffocating. Besides, what would the remoras do? ;) We, H. Saps, need teh Giants. We just need to be more sane about the regulations we fabricate to resolve the problems they impose.

    10 years? Awesome, Dikkii! I just got a 10 Year pin from my work yesterday. Pretty wild man. I'm almost 42, and before this gig, I'd never worked anywhere for longer than 3 1/2 years, and that was at the college Library while I went to school there!

    I really hope I'm still doin' some kind of blog 10 years out. This has been 3 'strong', so far. We'll be to see, eh. I'm glad you still are. Good stuff, eh!


    The profit-motive so has been
    Of this land the undoing--
    Since Reagan´s time, it was (the sin)
    Believed no cause for ruing.

    So universities exist
    To make a profit, not
    For learning, profit made the gist
    Of all endeavor, thought.

    So media too co-opted is,
    Too medicine, in all
    Reaches of culture, we find this,
    So leading to a fall.

    Even the jokers we installed
    In government: these move
    Mostly for profit-motives bald,
    Not altruistic love.

    So policy has utterly
    Been by careerists shaped,
    Intelligence reports, you see,
    In rank corruption draped.

    Cut off the head, but even will
    The headless beast survive,
    Writhing and wriggling, seeking still
    To let profit-lust drive.

    That´s how a culture as once shared
    Perhaps a higher aim
    Is brought down low, so, unrepaired
    Has nothing left but shame.


Post a Comment

Popular Posts