He vivido la mitad de mi vida adulta en cada continente, y solo para aclarar, NO viví en el Reino Unido. Dame Europa, sin duda. La única ventaja que tiene el siglo XXI de EE. UU. sobre Europa es que es mucho más fácil hacerse rico obscenamente en EE. UU. que en Europa, pero para el 99.9% de nosotros que nunca lograremos tales logros, la vida en Europa es mucho mejor:
Atención médica gratuita en el momento del parto (o casi gratis en el momento del parto)
Educación superior gratuita al momento de la entrega (o casi)
Estilo de vida más sostenible: menos dependencia de los combustibles fósiles (sí, lo sé, distancias más cortas, terreno diferente, yada yada)
Significativamente menos tribalismo (pero perdóname las anécdotas, sé que tampoco es perfecto en Europa)
Solidaridad: el reconocimiento de que cada uno de nosotros contribuye hoy para ayudar a los necesitados porque mañana podríamos ser los necesitados
Anti-intelectualismo menos desenfrenado
Mejor equilibrio trabajo-vida, menos horas trabajadas por día (con excepciones, por supuesto) y menos días trabajados por año.
Atención a la calidad de los alimentos y no solo a la cantidad.
Y para responder a la inevitable pregunta, mi esposa y yo tomamos la dolorosa y desgarradora decisión de abandonar Europa y mudarnos nuevamente a los EE. UU. solo porque nuestros seres queridos no podían o no viajarían a Europa y el viaje frecuente para nosotros era otro teniendo su costo físico y emocional.
The Republican governor of Maryland felt it was necessary to hide the state's 500,000 coronavirus test kits to prevent the Trump administration from confiscating them.
Being stuck at home for weeks during a pandemic means confronting all the things you own. Faced with stuffed closets and jammed basements, people are thinking about getting rid of those baseball cards, 1950s Pyrex mixing bowls, “Sex and the City” boxed sets and Grandma’s silver serving tray.
Unlike the good old days (any time before March 2020), you can’t schlep your shopping bags of treasures to a consignment shop or throw a traditional yard sale. But there are contactless ways to move some stuff and make extra money.
Many online sellers report that after a falloff of business in late March and early April, shoppers tired of “temporarily closed” signs at retailers are beginning to turn to the Internet. In April, eBay’s top “pre-owned and in-demand” items included puzzles (No. 1), cardio equipment, golf training sets and Legos.
A number of online sites found that after a short period of uncertainty as stay-at-home restrictions began in March, interest in both buying and selling is growing.
Tamara Rosenthal, a vice president at Sotheby’s Home, the virtual consignment division of Sotheby’s auction house, says it’s a good time to divest items. “People are sitting at home staring at their walls and thinking about what they need.” So, if you have the emotional bandwidth and are healthy, Rosenthal says, “it’s a good time to start selling things.”
You can open your own online shop on sites such as eBay or Etsy or sell your things to a reseller. Sites such as Ruby Lane and Replacements sell china and collectibles. Craigslist or Facebook Marketplace are still options, though using them will require good social distancing practices, thorough cleaning and contactless curbside pickup.
On Etsy, which has 2.7 million active sellers, you can create your own storefront with photos of what you want to sell. It costs 20 cents per item to list, and the site takes 5 percent of the sale price. “Right now is certainly a time for people to reevaluate, refresh and maybe start a new business,” says Dayna Isom Johnson, Etsy’s trend expert.
Sotheby’s Home consigns things that sell for about $150 and up. Experts will help you come up with a fair price; items can be on the site for up to a year. A Sotheby’s Home liaison can work with the seller through videoconferencing to advise on how to take the best photo angles and measurements of the items. The selling price is a 50/50 split. Rosenthal says items such as bowls, boxes and trays have been doing well. “Perhaps people are at home and feel the need to organize,” she says.
Becoming a seller takes planning and strategy, says Lori Verderame (a.k.a. Dr. Lori), a Pennsylvania antiques appraiser who offers online video appraisals and appears on the History Channel’s treasure-hunting show “The Curse of Oak Island.” Know what you have and what it’s worth. “We are not in a typical market, and we aren’t living the way we normally do,” she says. Now might be a good time to sell smaller items under $250; it might be best to wait to sell larger pieces of furniture or expensive jewelry.
She urges people to figure out logistics in advance. Will you use PayPal? Will you take personal checks? Will you pass on shipping costs to the buyer?
Above all, be realistic. If you’ve watched too many episodes of “Antiques Roadshow,” you can waste a lot of time trying to sell items at outrageous prices.
We’ve picked a few popular categories and asked experts for advice.
You won’t get rich selling off your music or movie collection, but doing so will free up space.
Decluttr is one of the buyback sites specializing in tech and media. The average price it will pay you for a CD is 82 cents; for a DVD, it’s 78 cents. You download its app and scan bar codes, and Decluttr will give you a price and send a free shipping label, which you print out.
“We are seeing more people get valuations,” says James Bell, Decluttr’s head of marketing. Tastes in music go in cycles. Right now, the Beatles, Fleetwood Mac, Bon Jovi and Dolly Parton are still in demand; Justin Bieber and boybands, not so much, Bell says. If an icon such as Bill Withers dies, their CDs often sell out. Lots of people are trying to dump their “Frozen” DVDs, but not many want to buy them. But box sets are spiking, one being “Mad Men.”
If you plan to sell your CDs, original packaging and inserts are preferable, with undamaged jewel cases. Here’s another tip: When scanning, remove all stickers, and make sure you scan the bar code from the original CD or DVD sleeve.
Vintage clothes
The market for vintage clothing was fairly healthy before the pandemic, but it was also flooded with merchandise after so many people became Marie Kondo followers. Buying vintage clothes is a greener way to shop, but it’s also seasonal: Your 1980s light-up reindeer holiday sweater would probably sell better in December than now.
Again, you need to decide whether you just want to get rid of your unwanted clothes (by mailing them in a prepaid bag to places such as ThredUp — and getting cash or credit when the accepted items sell) or downloading an app such Poshmark or Mercari, posting your own photos and paying commission and other applicable fees.
Terry Palmer from Colorado has an Etsy shop called Wear it Well, where she has been selling vintage clothes for 10 years. She sells pieces from many eras, which she finds thrifting or at estate sales. But the pandemic has sent her into her own closet for new pieces. She says the 1990s style is in demand right now: turtlenecks, long boyfriend cardigans, blouses with bold floral patterns and shoes from Anne Klein and Nine West. “It’s difficult to sell dresses right now with this at-home lifestyle,” she says.
Verderame says she has seen concert T-shirts, designer labels and sneakers in demand. Johnson says Etsy sellers have seen interest in 1990s crop tops, tie-dye and vintage handbags. Her tips for listing include being very specific about measurements and details. People love stories, so if you wore the gown to your 1976 prom or bought the shoes on a trip to Capri, Italy, include that.
Vintage housewares
As isolated citizens get reacquainted with their homes, they are going to be thinking about things they might want to make their spaces more attractive or functional.
AD
So if you have home accessories you want to get rid of, it might be good time to offload them. Champagne glasses, nightstands and vintage garden accessories are moving these days, says Pixie Windsor, owner of Washington’s Miss Pixie’s Furnishings and Whatnot. She can’t go to estate sales and flea markets, so she’s digging merchandise out of her storerooms and closets and sharing finds on Instagram now that her bricks-and-mortar shop on 14th Street is closed. (She has started offering curbside pickup.) Johnson says there have been spikes in interest in 1970s homewares, items with bee motifs and porcelain horses.
Patrick Newell of JPN Antiquities in Warrenton, Va., has been in the antiques business for 25 years and started an Etsy shop three years ago. Since he had to close his bricks-and-mortar shop due to the coronavirus, he has been posting more wares on Instagram. He says collecting whimsical paintings and figurines of animals is still a thing: foxes, frogs, cats, dogs, pigs and cows. Blue-and-white china is always a classic seller. Right now, he’s selling his collection of old Virginia, Maryland and D.C. history and architecture books (mostly $30 to $35 each) right off the overflowing shelves in his home, much to the delight of his wife.
Toys
It’s a good time to get rid of unwanted puzzles, for sure, though that’s not going to cover your weekly grocery tab. But if you have rare Star Wars collectibles in original packaging, you might be able to retire. Sites such as neatstuffcollectibles.com list the comic books, movie memorabilia and sports items they are interested in selling.
With people stuck inside with their kids, Lego sets are in demand. Some sites buy Legos by the pound. Decluttr instructs customers to put bricks into a plastic bag and weigh it, and the company will give a price, usually about $1 per pound.
Although some people will tell you Beanie Babies are a lost cause, Joanna Haber says her Etsy shop, Beanie Babies by Whimsy, is doing okay. Haber is selling off her collection of about 200 of the plush little animals that were a hot collectible in the 1990s. Although most originally sold for $5 to $8, Haber prices most of hers at about $40 — except for her $50,000 “Scorch” purple plush dragon, which draws lookers into her shop. (He has a rare manufacturing defect, she says.) Her advice: If you want to sell Beanies, they should be in mint condition with both hang tag and tush tag, the manufacturer’s fabric tag attached to the Beanie’s bottom. “Don’t list something that your dog got a hold of 20 years ago,” she advises. And it helps to write a nice story about the Beanie’s life.
Silver
Many of us have thought about dumping the family silver. It’s hard to know what is the right moment.
But do you even know whether you have sterling silver or silverplate? Many people don’t, says Beth Walker, co-founder of Gryphon Estate Silver in North Carolina, who buys and sells silver online. And it makes all the difference for what your candlesticks are worth. Check for the word “sterling” on your piece; the majority of U.S. silver will be stamped that. For other silver markings, check out 925-1000.com to learn more about hallmarks and identification, she says.
A plated flatware set for eight or 12 would go for about $75 to $200, she says. A sterling flatware set, depending on pattern, condition, engraving and number of pieces, could bring in $1,000 to $1,800 or more at retail. Tiffany is the most desired of makers, she says, but other popular ones include Reed & Barton, Kirk and Gorham.
Silver-plated items, unless you are into the shabby-chic look, are not much in demand right now, and they are usually better off donated to a thrift shop — when they reopen.
Newell says he found that the market for even beautiful antique silver pieces was not great before the pandemic, and he fears there won’t be many people searching for silver services in the age of social isolation.
“It’s going to be hard to turn most sterling silver into cash unless you melt it down,” he says. “If you are needing to supplement your income or get quick cash to pay the rent, forget it.”
Jura Koncius covers interiors and lifestyle for The Washington Post. She has written about the homes of Martha Stewart and profiled Blair House, the president's guest house. She reports on White House design and the major decluttering movement in America. She hosts a weekly Q&A on home and design Thursdays at 11 a.m. ET at live.washingtonpost.com.Follow
Alan: When friend Jimbo recommended "Planet Of The Humans," detailing its persuasive argument that we "greens" are blindly immersed in as much denial about the underbelly of "clean energy"as "Christian""conservatives" are about climate change, I was confident he was overstating the case - to say the least.
Now that I've seen the documentary, I no longer feel that way.
If you watch "Planet Of The Humans (which streams freely on YouTube), please know in advance that it is very difficult to witness Al Gore, Bill McKibben, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and The Sierra Club (to name a few) selling out to the blandishments of false promise and industrial-strength Cowboy Capitalism. (If nothing else, "Planet Of The Humans"' makes clear that an economic system based on infinite-growth-in-a-finite-space is as crazy as Donald Trump, Charles Manson and Ted Bundy taken together.)
Be sure to watch this documentary right through to the end of "the credits" to see how "our" environmental heroes and a host of "white knight" environmental agencies put their tail between their legs and repented their grotesque malfeasance within two weeks of the documentary's release.
Now that I have seen "Planet Of The Human's" revelations about our "green" underbelly, I am profoundly unsettled.
"Planet Of The Humans" has caused me to resurrect my long-standing (but dormant) judgment that -- in addition to far less consumption of goods, services and energy -- it is probably wisest to start constructing new generation nuclear power plants as the best available option for bridging the crucial decades needed to bring solar energy (and methods for storing solar energy) to viable, widespread fruition.
Nothing is perfect, including this "nuclear bridge."
But please watch the documentary and then get back to me with your plan, and/or critique of the film's arguments.
Oct 16, 2016 - Utilities in those states need to win state approval for charging customers higher rates to pay for the new power plants, but they don't have to ...
Sep 18, 2019 - The big, complex nuclear plants of the past are enormously expensive to build and maintain. ... 1950s, is the second-largest university reactor in the United States. ... An artist's rendition of a miniature nuclear reactor in transit.
Feb 21, 2019 - By shrinking its reactors, NuScale Power aims to compete with cheap ... just one nuclear reactor has turned on in the United States in the past ...
The United States knows that peaceful power from atomic energy is no dream of the future. That capability, already proved, is here now—today. Who can doubt, if ...
Next Generation Nuclear Power. New, safer and more economical nuclear reactors could not only satisfy many of our future energy needs but could combat ...
Feb 12, 2020 - Terrapower says its liquid sodium reactor can be fueled by depleted uranium, a byproduct of the uranium enrichment process that is used to create fuel for both nuclear reactors and weapons. ... “[Nuclear energy is] clearly low carbon. It is relatively safe.
Jul 18, 2018 - And he knew that nuclear power, the only existing form of clean energy ... the [latest conventional reactors], they have all these inherent safety ...
Nov 16, 2017 - The nuclear industry could benefit from a new generation of reactors designed to create inherently safer and more efficient nuclear power ...
Feb 27, 2019 - The new, safer nuclear reactors that might help stop climate change. From sodium-cooled fission to advanced fusion, a fresh generation of ...
Feb 3, 2017 - The Tricastin Nuclear Power Plant in France uses generation II pressurized water reactors. New kinds of safer, simpler nuclear reactors are ...
New reactor designs would mean nuclear plants so safe that they could be ... attempting to build various types of small, next-generation nuclear reactors, but it's ...
Know Nuclear Technology Next Generation of Reactors ... As the need for clean energy grows globally, nuclear science and technology provides reliable, local energy options that have near zero ... Be inherently safe and easy to operate.
Dec 13, 2019 - A new generation of reactors will start producing power in the next few years. They're comparatively tiny—and may be key to hitting our climate ...
A next generation nuclear plant (NGNP) is a generation IV very-high-temperature reactor (VHTR) that could be coupled to a neighboring hydrogen production ...
Once you've let "them" set the terms of terms of the debate, the debate is lost.
It's counterproductive to say "we can't do it anymore" when, in fact, there is FAR more resource per capita sloshing around the economy than ever before.
It's a question of allocation - "wealth re-distribution" - after which the rich would still remain rich by any reasonable standard.
There's oodles of wealth - so much that the sheer amount of wealth is fueling the environmental degradation spotlit by "Planet Of The Humans." (Did you finish watching the movie? I just sent you my review embedded in an email to Ed Myer.)
What we do have to contend with is a paucity of political will based on the premises of Common Good, General Welfare (a phrase from the preamble/mission-statement of the constitution) and a truly Social Contract.
"The Greatest Generation: Labor, Capital And Betrayal Of The Social Contract"
As you may know, I have "always" thought that you harbor counterproductive resentment for Rochester teachers'"pay and benefits," achievements attributable to Rochester teachers' strong union (at least "back in the day").
Sure, we can point to the shortcomings of unions -- and they are many.
But without unions, labor has NO leverage against CAPITAL and everything goes to Hell... as it has gone to hell.
The following post features Pope Francis strong support for the indispensable role of unions and probes why our "damnation" has taken place.
Early in my career as a teacher for Orange County Schools, Denise "shadowed" me for half a day, and at dinner that night commented that she couldn't imagine doing what I did for a single day, much less as an "everyday" career.
Teaching is damn hard work. (As I recall, teaching so exhausted you that you used to put your head on your "teachers desk" to take naps while "class was in session." This is not a criticism. It's an acknowledgement of how damn hard it is - except for a rare few who have a particular gift.)
Consider:
Leave "The Undeserving" Alone. Instead, Follow The Money And Lambaste Plutocrats Relentlessly
Plutocrats "like Trump" always "come out on top" because they successfully manipulate the middle class to disdain society's underbelly while blinding the middle class to The Fat Cats who - for thousands of years, without interruption - have sequestered so much wealth that THEY are The Core Malfeasants, they are the bedrock thugs who create - and sustain - the underbelly.
I read a bizarre and surreal headline this morning. OK, one especially so. Utah, apparently, is sending public employees…to Mexico… because medicine is cheaper. Wait, what? This — to put it kindly — is the stuff of social collapse. A country unable to provide basic medicine for its public employees — teachers, administrators — so it has to send them to another one? It tells us that America — like the Soviet Union — simply can’t provide the basics to its citizens anymore, which is the most essential and necessary condition of any social collapse.
"There Is Neither Nobility, Nor Kindness Nor Uplift In Trump's America"
Let me quickly review a few lessons from America’s weird and gruesome collapse.
Failed elites and institutions won’t save you from failed elites and institutions.
Do you see how the Democrats appear impotent to stop any of Trump’s abuses, really?
As in, he’s been impeached…and it doesn’t matter…
There he is now, “investigating” the opposition…banning entire countries…attacking the media? There’s a profound lesson there. The elites and institutions that failed -- and thus allowed demagoguery to flourish and rise to power -- can hardly protect your from it.
It’s a myth to believe otherwise.
It’s a comforting one, sure — those guys will wake up, develop a spine, learn how to play the game, use whatever metaphor you like — but it’s a myth nonetheless.
It almost never happens.
What happens, instead, is that failed elites and institutions go on failing — this time, at the job of checking the abuses of a demagogue and his extremist party and base.
That’s the story of how Weimar Germany became Nazi Germany, or how Soviet Russia became Putin’s Russia, and so on.
Why?
Well, think about what elites and institutions have to fail at to allow demagoguery to rise in the first place.
Demagoguery is a predictable function of economic stagnation.
Wherever you see an economy stagnating over the long-term, soon enough, you’ll see the rise of extremism, hate, violence, and authoritarian-fascism, all led by a demagogue.
Why?
Because poverty breeds just those things.
Poverty isn’t noble.
It is deprivation.
And deprivation turns people against one another.
A hungry man will steal from his neighbor to feed his child.
Extend that principle just a bit, and soon enough you have the unemployed good German, who became the cheering Gestapo officer.
"How We Ended Up In 2 Totally Divided Camps, Both Convinced They're Absolutely Right"
What elites have to fail at for demagoguery to rise is their first and most crucial task in a modern society: the creation, maintenance, and distribution of prosperity.
Consider that in America, fully half of the population works “low-wage jobs”, that 75% struggle to pay basic bills, that 80% can’t raise a meagre amount like $500 for an emergency, that the average person will live and die in unplayable debt.
The creation, maintenance, and distribution of prosperity has failed catastrophically in America.
A society that can’t distribute it’s surplus equitably finds itself in a death spiral.
What happens to a society that doesn’t create, maintain, and distribute prosperity in equitable ways?
A death spiral does.
Remember those public employees above, in Utah — who are being sent to Mexico…because they can’t afford the very same medicine in…America?
That’s what I mean by a death spiral.
The truth is that Americans don’t have any real public goods — healthcare, retirement, affordable education, childcare, transport, elderly care — and probably aren’t ever going to have them.
Even if noble and wise figures like Bernie and Liz want them. Why not?
Because the average American is now too poor to fund such things.
Utah is sending public employees to Mexico because they can’t afford decent healthcare — but you can scarcely afford to fund public healthcare on a public servant’s meagre salary, either.
Americans are now too poor to probably ever be able afford a society of generous, expansive public goods, like Europe or Canada.
That is what decades of underinvestment do. They culminate in long-term deficits of public goods — whether hospitals or schools or medicine or the rule of law itself.
Hence, a society enters a death spiral.
Americans go to Mexico and Canada to buy medicine, because they don’t have decent healthcare.
But they don’t have decent healthcare because they’re too poor, by and large, to fund it for all.
Bang!
A society plunges into decline.
So what’s the end state of such a society?
The endgame of a society like America is essentially to become Russia.
A society of mass poverty and stagnation, where living standards are bitterly low, which fuels tidal waves of resentment and fury and rage, which are expertly misdirected at minorities and others and the vulnerable, by a talented demagogue.
Nobody — and I mean nobody — should want to become Russia.
It’s the prime exemplar of a modern failed state, a state that failed at becoming modern.
Society is stratified, immobile, and growing poorer by the day.
In the 1930s, the end state of the vicious spiral that societies found themselves in (as a result of under-investment and exploitation) was Nazi style fascism.
Today, fascism is a different affair — but it’s no less fascist.
It doesn’t wear the uniforms, maybe, and drape the banners.
But it still dehumanizes and hates and blames minorities for economic woes, hoping to deny them personhood and equality and freedom and justice — in a word, "belonging"— so that there is more to go around for the impoverished one of true blood.
The demagogue understands intuitively something that elites don’t.
Remember when I said the first job of elites is the creation, maintenance, and distribution of prosperity?
The demagogue gets this much: all that has failed, and failed badly.
What he offers, though, is a vicious and violent solution: exclude, marginalize, maybe even annihilate them, those "others," and then there will be more for you.
But at least he recognizes there is a problem.
He has the wrong solution — often a Final One.
Elites, though, don’t even usually recognize there is a problem.
Take America’s elites.
They’ve been trained to look at one number, maybe three, and adore them like wide-eyed children: GDP, the stock market, and possibly how many ultra rich people America has.
But these figures don’t tell the true story of American collapse.
How can GDP be growing — while expectancy is falling?
How can the stock market be booming — while the average American has gone from a comfortable middle class life, to working a “low-wage job” of precarity, meaninglessness, and despair?
Now every average person knows the answer to those question: economic growth is predatory.
Those billionaires became billionaires by making the average person poor, broke, miserable, and hopeless — through exploitation.
Alan: If you are reluctant to share Lincoln's original Republican view of labor-and-capital, you are more interested in ideological obfuscation than clarification of Truth.
But Americans elites still don’t understand how mass stagnation and fresh poverty drove social collapse.
You can read articles every single day about how “the economy’s booming!”
What the?
How can an economy in which nobody, really, can afford decent healthcare, or ever retire, be “booming”?
Elites don’t question the exploitative nature of American growth because they don’t understand it.
And they don’t understand it because they don’t ever really encounter it.
If you live inside the DC Beltway, life’s never been better.
Northern Virginia is like some kind of modern-day utopia — all gleaming towers and new metro lines and highways and public libraries.
But leave the bubble — just drive a few short miles away — and you’ll see the opposite: a decrepit, neglected society.
But elites don’t leave their bubbles of comfort and privilege — why should they? — and so they don’t see the obvious truth with their own eyes, and so they don’t even understand the job they’ve failed at, which is prosperity itself.
That brings me to my final lesson.
If failed elites, and the institutions they lead, won’t save a society from stagnation-fueled demagoguery because they can’t even see it, recognize it, much less understand how to fight it…what can?
The answer is one that you won’t like.
It takes something like a revolution — a real one, in the direction of civilization and progress — to stop the vicious cycle above.
And we haven’t seen it very often in history.
The examples are so few and slender they’re barely worth discussing.
Alan: In his farewell address to the nation, Dwight Eisenhower called The Overarching, Profiteering Scam "The Military-Industrial Complex"
"Do Wars Really Defend America's Freedom?"
(Homage To Marine Commandant, Major General Smedley Butler)
You see, to combat demagoguery, a society needs a coalition, a group, a party, offering a unique agenda: the idea that a genuine transformation can deliver a better life for all.
Every word in that sentence is the key word.
“For all”: not just for the true or pure, like the demagogue and the fascist wants.
“Genuine transformation”: not just some kind of minor-league policy change — but a larger alteration of values, norms, ideals, aspirations: in America, that would be the idea that giving your neighbor healthcare is a far, far worthier thing to do with your life than to own a McMansion or three.
“The idea”: all that needs to be expressed through moral imagination, not just sterile policy analysis.
People need to be led to understand that the direction in which greater happiness and prosperity lies for themselves is when there is more of those for everyone, first — and that is a strange and profound idea, which takes "moral imagination" to reckon with.
How am I better off, just because that kid has a free college education?
How am I better off because that family has childcare?
Because that old person has a decent retirement?
The answers to these questions might be obvious to you because you are a wise and sane person. But they are, self-evidently, not obvious to many Americans.
That is why I say it takes leadership in the direction of "moral imagination" to help people literally imagine the answers to these questions. (The answers, by the way, are: they might cure that cancer you’ll get; such families make for a happier, healthier, gentler society; and because it’s the right and fair thing to do.)
It’s on this last point that I feel America’s the most challenged. It still doesn’t really, as a society, fully understand the moral challenge before it.
It’s used to being a selfish and cruel and domineering society, to be painfully honest.
Those are all moral challenges before they are anything else.
America’s elites don’t see them as such, because they still subscribe to a morality that says: the strong survive, and the weak perish. It’s the (im)morality of the predator — and it’s easy to believe in when you’re strutting down K Street or Madison Ave.
But when you’re trapped in a dead end life in Scranton, Topeka, Indianapolis — what then?
Societies don’t often rise to the challenge of moral reinvention.
How many can you name that have?
Germany, notably, did. But it took generations of decades and pain.
And the ugly currents of fascism are recurring there, too.
Russia, by contrast, didn’t pass the test of moral reinvention.
It never really progressed much beyond the mentality of tribalism and kleptocracy that brought the Soviet project to a halt — which you can see now in the mafias that rule it.
"Trump Is A Traitor By Virtue Of Normalizing Falsehood And Teaching Americans To Do The Same"
That is America’s truest — and greatest — challenge: moral reinvention.
It is not OK — morally, not just intellectually — for people to beg each other for money to pay for insulin online; for kids to pay lunch debt; for half a society (any society) to work “low-wage jobs”; for millennials to be unable to start basic adult lives; for their parents to never be able to retire.
None of that is OK.
All those things are great and terrible moral failures.
Yet that — that shocking kind of poverty and deprivation, that level of moral failure, especially in a rich country — is the root of the rest of what’s not OK: authoritarianism, hate, the abuse of power, rampant corruption, the total disintegration of institutions, the breakdown of norms and values, the legitimization and normalization of violence and anxiety and rage, the failure of elites to see how any of those dots are connected.
"The Moral Confusion Of Trump Christians," John Pavlovitz
You see that photo above? How Trump covers up his moral corrosion with fake tan? There’s a lesson there, about American collapse, and its deeper truths: its moral roots, and how they’re papered over.
Societies usually fail the task of moral reinvention.
It cuts to the heart of who they are, why they exist, what they are for.
America’s failed to morally reinvent itself -- for decades when it needed to most by each person giving themselves the courage, desire, thoughtfulness, empathy, compassion, will, power to give everyone else a decent life.
Will it succeed, over the next few years?
Only time will tell.
For the rest of us all these stories, and how they’re connected, teach the lessons of what we can, should, and must learn from American collapse.
Umair
February 2020
Since 1989, The Top 1% Gained $21 Trillion While The Bottom Half Lost $900 Billion
In your correspondence with Dr. Miller, you make a thorough, cogent, well-presented case.
The coronavirus crisis brings into high relief the manifest suicidality of Cowboy Capitalism and the jaw-dropping stupidity-ignorance-cruelty-barbarism of unbridled Capitalism's sludge-suckers like His Toxicity.
In the past, I have written piecemeal about "the puzzle pieces" which strongly suggest how an arguably critical mass of "conservative""Christians" actually cheerlead Armageddon as the "biblically-prescribed way" to elicit The Second Coming.
If you think these "Christians" are too few to be of existential concern, remember that they -- almost single-handedly -- are responsible for electing Malignant Messiah.
Frank Zappa Prophesied A Fascist Theocracy. Barry Goldwater Agrees
This "Christian" suicidality, weirdly disguised as "salvation," must then be coupled with the plutocratic urge to strip, sequester and seize as much resource as the magnates can rip off in anticipation of what now (more than ever) seems to be a quasi-conscious determination to kill off "the undeserving poor;" a "die-off" that the coronavirus pandemic facilitates, boosted by Trump's (strategized?) bungling, inaction and counter-productivity.
People who "have Trump's ear" -- most notably Steve Bannon -- are smart enough (and evil enough) to know that when ecosystems reach "carrying capacity," massive die-offs ensue and manifest with a stunningly rapidity, typically killing about one third of the species that has exceeded the carrying capacity of its ecosystem.
Without further ado, please visit the following post which links to "Planet Of The Humans," a just-released Michael Moore-produced documentary that is freely accessible on YouTube.
"Planet Of The Humans," A Michael Moore Production That Savages The Illusion Of Green Energy
Like anything, "Planet Of The Humans" is not far from perfect.
But its central premise that the "greens" been significantly co-opted by capitalist corporatism -- most especially by the Green Movement's bogus focus on insanely-defined "bio-fuels" -- is, to my mind, spot on.
I am confident "Planet Of The Humans" will evoke an animated, fertile, fruitful conversation.
Paz contigo
Alan
PS I must say that I cannot bring myself -- at least not yet -- to draw Maria and Daniel's attention to this Moore-Gibbs documentary.Until I am able get a better handle on my "response," asking them to watch "Planet Of The Humans" feels like a betrayal of the hopefulness and passionate dedication they now enjoy. In fact, "Planet Of The Humans" might wisely come with a generalized public health warning: "This Documentary May Be Dangerous To Your Psychological Well-Being."
PPS If you watch this documentary, be sure to watch the terminal creditsto see how "our" environmental heroes and a host of "white knight" environmental agencies put their tail between their legs, repenting their grotesque malfeasance within two weeks of the documentary's release.
My Dad - Neil Postman - Predicted Trump In 1985. It's Not Orwell, He Warned, It's "Brave New World."
The Ascent Of Donald Trump Has Proved Dad's Argument in "Amusing Ourselves To Death" Was Right. Here's What We Can Do About It.
Over the last year, as the presidential campaign grew increasingly bizarre and Donald Trump took us places we had never been before, I saw a spike in media references to Amusing Ourselves to Death, a book written by my late father, Neil Postman, which anticipated back in 1985 so much about what has become of our current public discourse.
At Forbes, one contributor wrote that the book “may help explain the otherwise inexplicable”. CNN noted that Trump’s allegedly shocking “ascent would not have surprised Postman”. At ChristianPost.com, Richard D Land reflected on reading the book three decades ago and feeling “dumbfounded … by Postman’s prophetic insights into what was then America’s future and is now too often a painful description of America’s present”. Last month, a headline at Paste Magazine asked: “Did Neil Postman Predict the Rise of Trump and Fake News?”
Colleagues and former students of my father, who taught at New York University for more than 40 years and who died in 2003, would now and then email or Facebook message me, after the latest Trumpian theatrics, wondering, “What would Neil think?” or noting glumly, “Your dad nailed it.”
The central argument of Amusing Ourselves is simple: there were two landmark dystopian novels written by brilliant British cultural critics – Brave New World by Aldous Huxley and Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell – and we Americans had mistakenly feared and obsessed over the vision portrayed in the latter book (an information-censoring, movement-restricting, individuality-emaciating state) rather than the former (a technology-sedating, consumption-engorging, instant-gratifying bubble).
The misplaced focus on Orwell was understandable: after all, for decades the cold war had made communism – as embodied by Nineteen Eighty-Four’s Big Brother – the prime existential threat to America and to the greatest of American virtues, freedom. And, to put a bow on it, the actual year, 1984, was fast approaching when my father was writing his book, so we had Orwell’s powerful vision on the brain.
Whoops. Within a half-decade, the Berlin Wall came down. Two years later, the Soviet Union collapsed.
“We were keeping our eye on 1984,” my father wrote. “When the year came and the prophecy didn’t, thoughtful Americans sang softly in praise of themselves. The roots of liberal democracy had held. Wherever else the terror had happened, we, at least, had not been visited by Orwellian nightmares.”
Unfortunately, there remained a vision we Americans did need to guard against, one that was percolating right then, in the 1980s. The president was a former actor and polished communicator. Our political discourse (if you could call it that) was day by day diminished to soundbites (“Where’s the beef?” and “I’m paying for this microphone” became two “gotcha” moments, apparently testifying to the speaker’s political formidableness).
The nation increasingly got its “serious” information not from newspapers, which demand a level of deliberation and active engagement, but from television: Americans watched an average of 20 hours of TV a week. (My father noted that USA Today, which launched in 1982 and featured colorized images, quick-glance lists and charts, and much shorter stories, was really a newspaper mimicking the look and feel of TV news.)
But it wasn’t simply the magnitude of TV exposure that was troubling. It was that the audience was being conditioned to get its information faster, in a way that was less nuanced and, of course, image-based. As my father pointed out, a written sentence has a level of verifiability to it: it is true or not true – or, at the very least, we can have a meaningful discussion over its truth. (This was pre-truthiness, pre-“alternative facts”.)
But an image? One never says a picture is true or false. It either captures your attention or it doesn’t. The more TV we watched, the more we expected – and with our finger on the remote, the more we demanded – that not just our sitcoms and cop procedurals and other “junk TV” be entertaining but also our news and other issues of import. Digestible. Visually engaging. Provocative. In short, amusing. All the time. Sorry, C-Span.
This was, in spirit, the vision that Huxley predicted way back in 1931, the dystopia my father believed we should have been watching out for. He wrote:
What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture.
1984 – the year, not the novel – looks positively quaint now. One-third of a century later, we all carry our own personalized screens on us, at all times, and rather than seven broadcast channels plus a smattering of cable, we have a virtual infinity of options.
Today, the average weekly screen time for an American adult – brace yourself; this is not a typo – is 74 hours (and still going up). We watch when we want, not when anyone tells us, and usually alone, and often while doing several other things. The soundbite has been replaced by virality, meme, hot take, tweet. Can serious national issues really be explored in any coherent, meaningful way in such a fragmented, attention-challenged environment?
Sure, times change. Technology and innovation wait for no man. Get with the program. But how engaged can any populace be when the most we’re asked to do is to like or not like a particular post, or “sign” an online petition? How seriously should anyone take us, or should we take ourselves, when the “optics” of an address or campaign speech – raucousness, maybe actual violence, childishly attention-craving gestures or facial expressions – rather than the content of the speech determines how much “airtime” it gets, and how often people watch, share and favorite it?
My father’s book warned of what was coming, but others have seen and feared aspects of it, too (Norbert Wiener, Sinclair Lewis, Marshall McLuhan, Jacques Ellul, David Foster Wallace, Sherry Turkle, Douglas Rushkoff, Naomi Klein, Edward Snowden, to name a few).
Our public discourse has become so trivialized, it’s astounding that we still cling to the word “debates” for what our presidential candidates do onstage when facing each other. Really? Who can be shocked by the rise of a reality TV star, a man given to loud, inflammatory statements, many of which are spectacularly untrue but virtually all of which make for what used to be called “good television”?
Who can be appalled when the coin of the realm in public discourse is not experience, thoughtfulness or diplomacy but the ability to amuse – no matter how maddening or revolting the amusement?
So, yes, my dad nailed it. Did he also predict that the leader we would pick for such an age, when we had become perhaps terminally enamored of our technologies and amusements, would almost certainly possess fascistic tendencies? I believe he called this, too.
For all the ways one can define fascism (and there are many), one essential trait is its allegiance to no idea of right but its own: it is, in short, ideological narcissism. It creates a myth that is irrefutable (much in the way that an image’s “truth” cannot be disproved), in perpetuity, because of its authoritarian, unrestrained nature.
“Television is a speed-of-light medium, a present-centered medium,” my father wrote. “Its grammar, so to say, permits no access to the past … history can play no significant role in image politics. For history is of value only to someone who takes seriously the notion that there are patterns in the past which may provide the present with nourishing traditions.”
Later in that passage, Czesław Miłosz, winner of the Nobel prize for literature, is cited for remarking in his 1980 acceptance speech that that era was notable for “a refusal to remember”; my father notes Miłosz referencing “the shattering fact that there are now more than one hundred books in print that deny that the Holocaust ever took place”.
Again: how quaint.
While fake news has been with us as long as there have been agendas, and from both sides of the political aisle, we’re now witnessing – thanks to Breitbart News, Infowars and perpetuation of myths like the one questioning Barack Obama’s origins – a sort of distillation, a fine-tuning.
“An Orwellian world is much easier to recognize, and to oppose, than a Huxleyan,” my father wrote. “Everything in our background has prepared us to know and resist a prison when the gates begin to close around us … [but] who is prepared to take arms against a sea of amusements?”
I wish I could tell you that, for all his prescience, my father also supplied a solution. He did not. He saw his job as identifying a serious, under-addressed problem, then asking a set of important questions about the problem. He knew it would be hard to find an easy answer to the damages wrought by “technopoly”. It was a systemic problem, one baked as much into our individual psyches as into our culture.
But we need more than just hope for a way out. We need a strategy, or at least some tactics.
First: treat false allegations as an opportunity. Seek information as close to the source as possible. The internet represents a great chance for citizens to do their own hunting – there’s ample primary source material, credible eyewitnesses, etc, out there – though it can also be manipulated to obfuscate that. No one’s reality, least of all our collective one, should be a grotesque game of telephone.
Second: don’t expect “the media” to do this job for you. Some of its practitioners do, brilliantly and at times heroically. But most of the media exists to sell you things. Its allegiance is to boosting circulation, online traffic, ad revenue. Don’t begrudge it that. But then don’t be suckered about the reasons why Story X got play and Story Y did not.
Third: for journalists, Jay Rosen, a former student of my father’s and a leading voice in the movement known as “public journalism”, offers several useful, practical suggestions.
Finally, and most importantly, it should be the responsibility of schools to make children aware of our information environments, which in many instances have become our entertainment environments, but there is little evidence that schools are equipped or care to do this. So someone has to.
We must teach our children, from a very young age, to be skeptics, to listen carefully, to assume everyone is lying about everything. (Well, maybe not everyone.) Check sources. Consider what wasn’t said. Ask questions. Understand that every storyteller has a bias – and so does every platform.
We all laughed – some of us, anyway – at Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert’s version of the news, to some extent because everything had become a joke. If we wish not to be “soma”-tized (Huxley’s word) by technology, to be something less than smiling idiots and complicit in the junking of our own culture, then “what is required of us now is a new era of responsibility … giving our all to a difficult task. This is the price and the promise of citizenship.”
My father didn’t write those last words – our recently retired president said them in his final inaugural address. He’s right. It will be difficult. It’s not so amusing any more.
http://musicfog.com James McMurtry performs a song that my be even more relevant now than when he wrote it years ago. Filmed at Threadgill's WHQ in Austin, T...