The December issue of National Geographic Magazine has a good illustrative feature on pages 26-29 called "The Carbon Bathtub." It uses the image of a bathtub with the tap running and the drain open to show the dynamics associated with the buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the difficulty of removing it.
We are pouring CO2 into the air at the rate of 9.1 billion metric tons a year, but only 5 million tons a year are being removed by biological and geological processes. As a result the CO2 concentration is now at 385 parts per million, up from 271 ppm before the Industrial Revolution. The previous high in the past 800,000 years, as demonstrated by Antarctic ice cores, was 299 ppm 333,000 year ago. What is important to realize is that even if we were to freeze CO2 emissions at their current levels, concentrations would continue to rise. That's because the "tap" is already running nearly twice as fast as the "drain" can dispose of the excess.
About 80% of our carbon emissions come from burning fossil fuels. That includes natural gas, often touted as much cleaner than coal or petroleum. It does indeed produce fewer poisonous compounds when burned, but is nearly equivalent to the others when it comes to releasing carbon dioxide. Almost the entire remaining 20% comes from deforestation.
At these rates, 30% of the CO2 is absorbed by plants and the soil, 25% is absorbed by the oceans and 1% is incorporated into the formation of new rocks. That means 44% stays in the atmosphere. It's ominous to realize that if, "we stop emissions completely" it would take 300 years to get the CO2 concentration back to 350 ppm, the level many environmental scientists feel is necessary to restrain the worst impending effects of climate change. We have already raised the planet's average temperature about 1 degree.
You can go online to an interactive National Geographic site on this. It allows you to experiment with plugging different figures into the emissions or sequestrations to achieve various climate results. The bottom line is that if we do nothing and continue on our current path the ppm will be 955 in the year 2100 and global temperature will go up another 4.6 degrees.
If that were to happen the results would be catastrophic in terms of sea level rise, extinctions, disruption of the water cycle and, consequently, food production. The Copenhagen Climate Change Conference from December 7 to 18 will be an important indicator of the extent to which these dynamics are being taken seriously. Kyoto showed that most of the world had awakened to the danger. We have already seen that the new American Administration, unlike its predecessor, has joined the rest of the world in recognizing that a problem exists. Let's hope that science and the imperatives of survival begin to overcome denial and the service of special interest pollution agendas at the Conference.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Sunday, November 22, 2009
"Now I've Seen Everything" Department
Truth is indeed stranger than fiction. You just never know when something absolutely bizarre is about to take place. One of those Twilight Zone kind of moments happened to my daughter Marie in San Diego on Thursday.
There she was watching the local news on TV when on came a story about an accident. Some dufus had run into a fire hydrant and broken it off from its moorings. The broadcast had footage of the resulting huge, photogenic geyser spewing water onto an adjacent three-story commercial building. The report continued that the water had pooled on the building's roof. Then the weight of the water caused the roof to collapse. You can see a report with a news photo of the incident here.
What a freakish turn of events, she was thinking. And then she started noticing how familiar that building was looking. Now where, where--oh no! That was the building with the bridal shop, the one where she'd bought her wedding dress, where they were keeping it until they made the alterations. Yes, THAT building. The one that was flooded, and with the roof caved in.
What a disaster. When she phoned she was incredulous, stunned and in a mild state of panic. The wedding's in January and things like wedding dresses can take a long time to find, fit and fix. Fortunately, she was able to contact another shop the very next day that was able to track down the same dress from the same maker and make it available to her.
It was only after that that I could say this is the kind of event that seems horrible at the time but is good for a lot of laughs in the retelling over the years. Something like this is better than anything somebody could make up.
Now everyone can relax. Or maybe not. Who knows what crazy improbability is going to happen next? Life is just one darn thing after another, but at least is serves to keep things interesting.
There she was watching the local news on TV when on came a story about an accident. Some dufus had run into a fire hydrant and broken it off from its moorings. The broadcast had footage of the resulting huge, photogenic geyser spewing water onto an adjacent three-story commercial building. The report continued that the water had pooled on the building's roof. Then the weight of the water caused the roof to collapse. You can see a report with a news photo of the incident here.
What a freakish turn of events, she was thinking. And then she started noticing how familiar that building was looking. Now where, where--oh no! That was the building with the bridal shop, the one where she'd bought her wedding dress, where they were keeping it until they made the alterations. Yes, THAT building. The one that was flooded, and with the roof caved in.
What a disaster. When she phoned she was incredulous, stunned and in a mild state of panic. The wedding's in January and things like wedding dresses can take a long time to find, fit and fix. Fortunately, she was able to contact another shop the very next day that was able to track down the same dress from the same maker and make it available to her.
It was only after that that I could say this is the kind of event that seems horrible at the time but is good for a lot of laughs in the retelling over the years. Something like this is better than anything somebody could make up.
Now everyone can relax. Or maybe not. Who knows what crazy improbability is going to happen next? Life is just one darn thing after another, but at least is serves to keep things interesting.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Health Cost Containment in H.R. 3962
There are really two essential components to needed health care reform in America: access and cost containment. These are the two elements that threaten the health and economy of the nation, and that President Obama and the public have identified as most important to meaningful reform. Having 47 million people uncovered is a moral blot and embarrassment to the country, especially since many poorer countries are able to cover of all their people. But the cost of insuring them at American health prices is what makes it so difficult. We have less to go around when we have to spend 17% of our GDP on health to cover 80% of our people while others cover 100% of their people for only 9% of their GDP.
I asked a knowledgeable health professional if there are effective cost containment mechanisms in the health care legislation passed by the House last Saturday. Bob Montion is the retired CEO of a local hospital. He's read all 1,990 pages of H.R. 3962. You can read an article on it here, including a link to the entire document. I asked him if he could give me a synopsis of provisions in the bill that might help rein in the ruinous rise in American medical costs. After reading this you will have a good idea what to tell people when they ask what the legislation does to help get a handle on the rising health costs that are bankrupting too many Americans and making it harder and harder for our businesses to compete.
He says, "As for cost controls, the most effective is the public option. Insurance companies have feared the public option most because they know it will cause them to lower premiums to compete."
He remarks that preventative care will get a big boost under the new system. That should help drive down long-term costs by preventing potentially serious conditions from becoming critical and expensive.
Next, the simple fact that everyone will now have medical coverage, "will exchange expensive emergency care for low cost ambulatory care in clinic and doctor offices" and again, "identify illnesses early while they are manageable and cost effective."
Bob also mentions, "the seeds of medical malpractice reform in the bill," that can save a lot of money now spent on "defensive medicine."
He believes a continuation of the no-nonsense fraud and abuse enforcement initiated when the new administration came into office has already begun to bear fruit. "Some of the largest settlements ever have occurred in the last nine months. They will cut $100 billion a year in direct and indirect fraud and abuse." If that is true, this alone will pay for the cost of the bill, which is estimated at $102 billion a year over ten years.
This experienced health administrator would like to see additional measures in a final bill, such as, "a system that salaries doctors rather than paying them per service provided." Incentivizing more procedures doubtlessly insures that more will be performed.
In summation, Bob writes, "The cost provisions are there but subtle and designed to drive the market to reform its own system. Not nirvana, but a good bill."
I asked a knowledgeable health professional if there are effective cost containment mechanisms in the health care legislation passed by the House last Saturday. Bob Montion is the retired CEO of a local hospital. He's read all 1,990 pages of H.R. 3962. You can read an article on it here, including a link to the entire document. I asked him if he could give me a synopsis of provisions in the bill that might help rein in the ruinous rise in American medical costs. After reading this you will have a good idea what to tell people when they ask what the legislation does to help get a handle on the rising health costs that are bankrupting too many Americans and making it harder and harder for our businesses to compete.
He says, "As for cost controls, the most effective is the public option. Insurance companies have feared the public option most because they know it will cause them to lower premiums to compete."
He remarks that preventative care will get a big boost under the new system. That should help drive down long-term costs by preventing potentially serious conditions from becoming critical and expensive.
Next, the simple fact that everyone will now have medical coverage, "will exchange expensive emergency care for low cost ambulatory care in clinic and doctor offices" and again, "identify illnesses early while they are manageable and cost effective."
Bob also mentions, "the seeds of medical malpractice reform in the bill," that can save a lot of money now spent on "defensive medicine."
He believes a continuation of the no-nonsense fraud and abuse enforcement initiated when the new administration came into office has already begun to bear fruit. "Some of the largest settlements ever have occurred in the last nine months. They will cut $100 billion a year in direct and indirect fraud and abuse." If that is true, this alone will pay for the cost of the bill, which is estimated at $102 billion a year over ten years.
This experienced health administrator would like to see additional measures in a final bill, such as, "a system that salaries doctors rather than paying them per service provided." Incentivizing more procedures doubtlessly insures that more will be performed.
In summation, Bob writes, "The cost provisions are there but subtle and designed to drive the market to reform its own system. Not nirvana, but a good bill."
Sunday, November 1, 2009
GOP Still in the Doldrums
I hope you had a pleasant Halloween and remembered to set your clocks back an hour. It will be nice to have more light on the way to work in the morning, though the fall of darkness at five o'clock on that first evening always comes as a depressing shock. It calls up images of the months of cold and gloom to follow. Or of months snuggled under a throw with a good book and some hot cocoa, if you're of a positive bent. The problem is often less the problem itself than how we react to it or deal with it.
Now that calls to mind the sliding fortunes of the Republican Party of late. There are a number of polls out recently, all of which continue to chart the plummeting estimation of the GOP in the eyes of the American populace. You can see some here at PollTrack.com. One of note mentioned is a CNN survey just out that puts the GOP's favorables/unfavorables at 36-54, compared to the Democrats' 53-41. Other recent data says only 21 to 25% of the people now identify themselves as Republicans, compared to 34-36% who identify themselves as Democrats. You can find lots of interesting numbers, including these, at FiveThirtyEight.com. Democratic identification has been pretty steady at around 36% since about 1984. Republican has been around 32% over the same period, so this drastic fall has got to be a matter of concern for them.
There are a number of explanations, of course. One is the unpopularity of George W. Bush at the end of his tenure, which rubbed off on the rest of his party and meted out serious election consequences in 2006 and 2008. No doubt the effect still lingers, particularly since his Vice President, Dick Cheney, even more unpopular than Bush, continues to inject himself into the news cycle and remind the voters what they had grown so disillusioned with. Another is certainly the economic crisis that became manifest during the Republican watch as well.
One can expect these phenomena to dissipate some with time. But in a deeper sense, the current disillusionment continues to be a product of ongoing strategy. Whatever his other messages, Barack Obama's 2008 calling card was "change." The American people were hungry for it. Even his Republican opponents recognized that and tried to play up their "maverick" and "rogue" credentials. But the present face of the GOP, both in Washington and among their populist-oriented grassroots activists, seems to stand primarily for opposition to any change and to working together civilly to achieve solutions to the country's many problems.
In spite of the angry town halls on health care, a majority of Americans now support a health "public option." Or maybe partly because of them. They opposed the economic stimulus, extension of equal pay for women, immigration reform, cash for clunkers, talks with Iran, gas mileage standards and most opposed Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court. While there are plenty who have problems with one or more of those initiatives, the fact that they uniformly seem to be against every attempt at change and appear to reject as a nearly unified bloc Obama's "bipartisanship" overtures have placed them in a tough spot with a public that knows a lot is wrong and needs fixing.
Americans may not all agree on what to do, but most feel standing pat with a bad hand is poor strategy. Until the Republicans can come up with and articulate a vision and some ideas that actually change the status quo and are not simply rehashes of their traditional mantras that most associate with having led to the current bad state of affairs, the GOP will keep wallowing in the doldrums. These things do tend to go in cycles, so Republican fortunes are bound to improve sooner or later. But unless they can find something new and meaningful to say they could actually find themselves losing a couple more senate seats in 2010.
Now that calls to mind the sliding fortunes of the Republican Party of late. There are a number of polls out recently, all of which continue to chart the plummeting estimation of the GOP in the eyes of the American populace. You can see some here at PollTrack.com. One of note mentioned is a CNN survey just out that puts the GOP's favorables/unfavorables at 36-54, compared to the Democrats' 53-41. Other recent data says only 21 to 25% of the people now identify themselves as Republicans, compared to 34-36% who identify themselves as Democrats. You can find lots of interesting numbers, including these, at FiveThirtyEight.com. Democratic identification has been pretty steady at around 36% since about 1984. Republican has been around 32% over the same period, so this drastic fall has got to be a matter of concern for them.
There are a number of explanations, of course. One is the unpopularity of George W. Bush at the end of his tenure, which rubbed off on the rest of his party and meted out serious election consequences in 2006 and 2008. No doubt the effect still lingers, particularly since his Vice President, Dick Cheney, even more unpopular than Bush, continues to inject himself into the news cycle and remind the voters what they had grown so disillusioned with. Another is certainly the economic crisis that became manifest during the Republican watch as well.
One can expect these phenomena to dissipate some with time. But in a deeper sense, the current disillusionment continues to be a product of ongoing strategy. Whatever his other messages, Barack Obama's 2008 calling card was "change." The American people were hungry for it. Even his Republican opponents recognized that and tried to play up their "maverick" and "rogue" credentials. But the present face of the GOP, both in Washington and among their populist-oriented grassroots activists, seems to stand primarily for opposition to any change and to working together civilly to achieve solutions to the country's many problems.
In spite of the angry town halls on health care, a majority of Americans now support a health "public option." Or maybe partly because of them. They opposed the economic stimulus, extension of equal pay for women, immigration reform, cash for clunkers, talks with Iran, gas mileage standards and most opposed Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court. While there are plenty who have problems with one or more of those initiatives, the fact that they uniformly seem to be against every attempt at change and appear to reject as a nearly unified bloc Obama's "bipartisanship" overtures have placed them in a tough spot with a public that knows a lot is wrong and needs fixing.
Americans may not all agree on what to do, but most feel standing pat with a bad hand is poor strategy. Until the Republicans can come up with and articulate a vision and some ideas that actually change the status quo and are not simply rehashes of their traditional mantras that most associate with having led to the current bad state of affairs, the GOP will keep wallowing in the doldrums. These things do tend to go in cycles, so Republican fortunes are bound to improve sooner or later. But unless they can find something new and meaningful to say they could actually find themselves losing a couple more senate seats in 2010.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Public Option Becomes State Option?
The long and winding road to health reform took another turn today as Senate Majority leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced he had decided to include a public option in the bill he will take to the Senate, perhaps as early as next week. The key element that may make it acceptable to enough senators to merit consideration is including a provision allowing states to "opt out" of the public plan. For the Reuters story on this development click here, or check the Washington Post on it here.
The way this could work is like this: it takes 60 votes in the Senate, not to pass something but to close debate so they can vote whether to pass it or not. The 60 vote threshold is actually to permit an up or down vote that would only need a majority. Since the Democrats have exactly 60 votes it might be very difficult for any of them to vote with the Republicans to prevent a vote, especially if a Senator's home state could turn down the plan if it wanted to. Once a filibuster attempt was defeated by the 60 votes, then the plan itself could pass with 51 votes, or even 50, with Vice President Joe Biden voting to break a tie. There probably are not 60 votes for a health plan with the public option in the Senate, but there certainly are 50. There is even talk that perhaps only two or three Senators might be iffy on a plan with a public option if their state would have the right to turn it down. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana are among those mentioned.
Reid said that according to the prospective plan a state would have until 2014 to nix the arrangement. How that would happen remains a mystery. Would it be by majority vote of the state legislature, or some other means? And what kind of precedent would that set? We can go all the way back to 1828, when South Carolina Senator John C. Calhoun made the case for "nullification" in his famous article Exposition and Protest, arguing that his state ought to have the authority not to enforce a federal tariff it disagreed with. President Andrew Jackson ended that controversy by threatening to invade the state and hang the nullifiers who would flout federal law.
One can imagine how the privilege of states being allowed to selectively scrap federal legislation unpopular within their borders would have operated in the South had it been incorporated into the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts of the 1960s. Jim Crow would prevail there to this day had that been the case. It is a very, very dangerous precedent to set.
That being said, if politics is the "art of the possible" then this may be what makes progress on a bill that truly does something possible. Reid mentioned he "clearly" believes the bill would have "the support of my caucus." President Obama released a statement saying he was "pleased that the Senate has decided to include a public option for health coverage, in this case with an allowance for states to opt out."
Of course, the move might turn out to be one of the shrewdest ploys seen in the capitol in many a year. Once available, it is difficult to imagine many governors or legislatures in any but the most extreme right wing states denying their eligible citizens such a choice. It is remindful of the handful of Republican governors, all with apparent presidential ambitions at the time (Sanford of SC-there's that state again-, Pawlenty of MN, Palin of AK and Jindal of LA for instance) who tried to turn down part of the stimulus money this year but were overwhelmingly overruled by their own state legislatures in every case.
A couple of months ago my wife mentioned this possibility for the public option jokingly. "Why don't they pass it for the blue states and not for the red states?" she quipped. She then went on, "Of course then everybody would move out of those states to someplace they could get affordable health insurance." Exactly. It'll be a riot to see what happens next. As Lewis Carroll would have said, things just keep getting curioser and curioser.
The way this could work is like this: it takes 60 votes in the Senate, not to pass something but to close debate so they can vote whether to pass it or not. The 60 vote threshold is actually to permit an up or down vote that would only need a majority. Since the Democrats have exactly 60 votes it might be very difficult for any of them to vote with the Republicans to prevent a vote, especially if a Senator's home state could turn down the plan if it wanted to. Once a filibuster attempt was defeated by the 60 votes, then the plan itself could pass with 51 votes, or even 50, with Vice President Joe Biden voting to break a tie. There probably are not 60 votes for a health plan with the public option in the Senate, but there certainly are 50. There is even talk that perhaps only two or three Senators might be iffy on a plan with a public option if their state would have the right to turn it down. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana are among those mentioned.
Reid said that according to the prospective plan a state would have until 2014 to nix the arrangement. How that would happen remains a mystery. Would it be by majority vote of the state legislature, or some other means? And what kind of precedent would that set? We can go all the way back to 1828, when South Carolina Senator John C. Calhoun made the case for "nullification" in his famous article Exposition and Protest, arguing that his state ought to have the authority not to enforce a federal tariff it disagreed with. President Andrew Jackson ended that controversy by threatening to invade the state and hang the nullifiers who would flout federal law.
One can imagine how the privilege of states being allowed to selectively scrap federal legislation unpopular within their borders would have operated in the South had it been incorporated into the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts of the 1960s. Jim Crow would prevail there to this day had that been the case. It is a very, very dangerous precedent to set.
That being said, if politics is the "art of the possible" then this may be what makes progress on a bill that truly does something possible. Reid mentioned he "clearly" believes the bill would have "the support of my caucus." President Obama released a statement saying he was "pleased that the Senate has decided to include a public option for health coverage, in this case with an allowance for states to opt out."
Of course, the move might turn out to be one of the shrewdest ploys seen in the capitol in many a year. Once available, it is difficult to imagine many governors or legislatures in any but the most extreme right wing states denying their eligible citizens such a choice. It is remindful of the handful of Republican governors, all with apparent presidential ambitions at the time (Sanford of SC-there's that state again-, Pawlenty of MN, Palin of AK and Jindal of LA for instance) who tried to turn down part of the stimulus money this year but were overwhelmingly overruled by their own state legislatures in every case.
A couple of months ago my wife mentioned this possibility for the public option jokingly. "Why don't they pass it for the blue states and not for the red states?" she quipped. She then went on, "Of course then everybody would move out of those states to someplace they could get affordable health insurance." Exactly. It'll be a riot to see what happens next. As Lewis Carroll would have said, things just keep getting curioser and curioser.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Crime Foiled in First-Ever Technological Intervention: in Visalia!
Sometimes a town is remembered in history thanks to a seminal event. Kitty Hawk, North Carolina will forever be remembered as the site of the Wright brothers' first powered flight, Lexington, Massachusetts for the "shot heard 'round the world" and Lake Placid, New York for the "miracle on ice." Perhaps my town of Visalia, California will assume a similar position in the pantheon of remarkable events as the place where remote technology first stymied a carjacker. You can read the AP story on it here.
Jose Ruiz and his cousin were sitting in his 2009 Chevy Tahoe in a parking lot when a 21-year old man approached, leveled a shotgun at them and ordered them out. He had them empty their pockets. Then he got in the SUV and drove off.
Ruiz ran to a nearby pay phone and saw a sheriff's deputy on break who called Visalia police. Police spotted the truck a few miles down the road, and when they tried to flag it down the driver sped off at high speed. Little did he know that Ruiz was informing the cops he had OnStar for the vehicle. Once dispatchers got in touch with the OnStar operator and Ruiz gave his password, the remote service disabled the Tahoe's accelerator and it coasted to a stop.
The suspect fled into residential backyards in the dark, hopping over fences to elude police. The chase ended when he finally vaulted over a fence into a swimming pool and was quickly captured. "He wouldn't have pulled over if OnStar wouldn't have shut the vehicle down," commented Visalia police Sergeant Steve Phillips. The capability prevented a perilous high-speed pursuit that would have placed officers, innocent drivers and even the suspect himself in danger.
This was the first such incident of its kind but won't be the last. High technology kept people safe and helped take a threatening criminal off the streets. Score one for the future.
Jose Ruiz and his cousin were sitting in his 2009 Chevy Tahoe in a parking lot when a 21-year old man approached, leveled a shotgun at them and ordered them out. He had them empty their pockets. Then he got in the SUV and drove off.
Ruiz ran to a nearby pay phone and saw a sheriff's deputy on break who called Visalia police. Police spotted the truck a few miles down the road, and when they tried to flag it down the driver sped off at high speed. Little did he know that Ruiz was informing the cops he had OnStar for the vehicle. Once dispatchers got in touch with the OnStar operator and Ruiz gave his password, the remote service disabled the Tahoe's accelerator and it coasted to a stop.
The suspect fled into residential backyards in the dark, hopping over fences to elude police. The chase ended when he finally vaulted over a fence into a swimming pool and was quickly captured. "He wouldn't have pulled over if OnStar wouldn't have shut the vehicle down," commented Visalia police Sergeant Steve Phillips. The capability prevented a perilous high-speed pursuit that would have placed officers, innocent drivers and even the suspect himself in danger.
This was the first such incident of its kind but won't be the last. High technology kept people safe and helped take a threatening criminal off the streets. Score one for the future.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Michael Moore's "Capitalism"
I went to see Michael Moore's latest film, "Capitalism, A Love Story," last night. Like most of his films, it was an uneven but powerful mix of personal stories, history, ironic narration and community and personal action. You ought to get out and give it a look. Moore's thesis is split between two possible conclusions: that capitalism is either simply inherently immoral, or that it might be salvageable if the people democratically insist on making it work for them.
Moore begins by examining the constant drumbeat of propaganda for the American variant of capitalism, or at least the laissez-faire perspective on it. He then goes into the hypocrisy of companies that preached that principle but then when they got into trouble, turned to the regular taxpayers for hundreds of billions in bailout money. He spent a lot of time contrasting that with average families being evicted from their homes and farms on the principle of "let the buyer beware" free enterprise and predatory loans by the same financial institutions who took public money to overcome their own difficulties and used some of it to pay their executives (themselves) multi-million dollar bonuses.
Moore effectively went back in history to show his viewers a time, the 1950's and 60s, when marginal tax rates for the wealthy were as high as 90% and the standard of living for average working families and the provision of public amenities was generous. He played a speech from Franklin Roosevelt advocating the adoption of a "Second Bill of Rights" focusing on economic rights such as a good job at a liveable wage, a quality education, good affordable housing and health care for all, which would be accomplished, "after this war is finished." FDR died before the war ended, but Moore again points up the irony of how the American occupation administrations in the nations of our conquered enemies mandated all these provisions and democracy into the constitutions of Germany, Italy and Japan, and how the people of those nations have enjoyed these benefits as rights ever since, rights the people in the occupying power, the United States of America, do not enjoy for themselves.
Moore shows a few instances where people mobilizing together effect change for the good, such as a family backed by community organizers who refuse to vacate their home, and when the employees of Republic window and door faced down Bank of America and won. It is this kind of call for action Moore is openly championing by film's end. He even explores a financial industry document purportedly sent to major insiders saying that the gravy train for the rich will continue unless the bulk of the population uses their numbers to change the situation. The clear implication to the letter's well-heeled recipients is that that must never be allowed to happen. In many ways, Moore makes the point that the greedy few keep gaming the system so that they continue to gobble up a greater and greater share of the economy's output while the working and middle classes work harder and harder for a diminishing share. In many ways, his case is persuasive.
Moore wraps up rather theatrically, in his own inimitable style, with an appeal for the public to unite and take charge of their future by making the corporate, especially the financial industry, give the consumer a better break, be barred from arcane, non-productive and self-serving instruments such as derivatives and return a far greater proportion back to community purposes through heavier taxation. If you are a progressive you will enjoy the points and message of the movie. If you are not you know exactly what you will have to worry about in the next few years. Either way, it's definitely worth seeing.
Moore begins by examining the constant drumbeat of propaganda for the American variant of capitalism, or at least the laissez-faire perspective on it. He then goes into the hypocrisy of companies that preached that principle but then when they got into trouble, turned to the regular taxpayers for hundreds of billions in bailout money. He spent a lot of time contrasting that with average families being evicted from their homes and farms on the principle of "let the buyer beware" free enterprise and predatory loans by the same financial institutions who took public money to overcome their own difficulties and used some of it to pay their executives (themselves) multi-million dollar bonuses.
Moore effectively went back in history to show his viewers a time, the 1950's and 60s, when marginal tax rates for the wealthy were as high as 90% and the standard of living for average working families and the provision of public amenities was generous. He played a speech from Franklin Roosevelt advocating the adoption of a "Second Bill of Rights" focusing on economic rights such as a good job at a liveable wage, a quality education, good affordable housing and health care for all, which would be accomplished, "after this war is finished." FDR died before the war ended, but Moore again points up the irony of how the American occupation administrations in the nations of our conquered enemies mandated all these provisions and democracy into the constitutions of Germany, Italy and Japan, and how the people of those nations have enjoyed these benefits as rights ever since, rights the people in the occupying power, the United States of America, do not enjoy for themselves.
Moore shows a few instances where people mobilizing together effect change for the good, such as a family backed by community organizers who refuse to vacate their home, and when the employees of Republic window and door faced down Bank of America and won. It is this kind of call for action Moore is openly championing by film's end. He even explores a financial industry document purportedly sent to major insiders saying that the gravy train for the rich will continue unless the bulk of the population uses their numbers to change the situation. The clear implication to the letter's well-heeled recipients is that that must never be allowed to happen. In many ways, Moore makes the point that the greedy few keep gaming the system so that they continue to gobble up a greater and greater share of the economy's output while the working and middle classes work harder and harder for a diminishing share. In many ways, his case is persuasive.
Moore wraps up rather theatrically, in his own inimitable style, with an appeal for the public to unite and take charge of their future by making the corporate, especially the financial industry, give the consumer a better break, be barred from arcane, non-productive and self-serving instruments such as derivatives and return a far greater proportion back to community purposes through heavier taxation. If you are a progressive you will enjoy the points and message of the movie. If you are not you know exactly what you will have to worry about in the next few years. Either way, it's definitely worth seeing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)