The following is my response to a senior student who sent me links to two videos on YouTube. The first was related to consumption, environmental issues, etc. While definitely coming from a certain point of view, it pales into insignificance compared to the "rebuttal," also posted. I know not who paid for it, but it was so skewed I felt compelled to respond. I'm simply including the entire rant as I sent it to the student [and then the ensuing dialogue]...I'm saying nothing here WANZIE or Senator Franken haven't said before, just repackaged. Enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLBE5QAYXp8

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5uJgG05xUY
 

Mike

EDITORS NOTE: The name of the actual student has been changed to protect the innocent.

"Ben,"
Thanks for sending me the videos. Of course all we see on the web is true, so how can it be that these two are so contradictory?  The answer, of course, lies in the fact that both have a point of view and issues they care about.  I see the "typical" environmentalist point of view in the original, and the reactionary super conservative point of view in the "rebuttal."  The rebuttal spins facts in a vastly more distorted fashion, especially when trying to convince you he can channel James Madison. First: if you believe the point that we must only do what the framers intended us to do, then do away with: NASA, the NTSB, the department of Energy, Labor, Health and Human Services, etc., as none of these and a million other agencies we all agree are essential were intended by Madison, not because he was short sighted, but for the opposite reason. It was impossible in 1789 to even imagine how we would grow and change as a nation. Those who bemoan what they view as deviations from
the founder's intent should be condemned to fly into airports without control towers and air traffic controllers. Sounds silly, doesn't it? No sillier than to think that if two gay persons marry, it desecrates my 45 year marriage.
 
If you think the girl in the video is biased, what do you think about the corporate shill in the rebuttal? He is clearly angry and sounds like Rush Limbaugh's retarded brother.  Does the video exaggerate (the original)? - Probably, in some areas, but the nature of the consumption chain is accurate.  We continue to view resources elsewhere in the world as "ours." If you don't think so, ask yourself what we as a nation would be prepared to do if the Saudis announced tomorrow the end of oil sales to us the next day. This nation decided under several Presidents of both parties that unregulated laissez faire markets are interested only in the profit for them, and not the general welfare of the consumer. The interpretation of the rebuttal guy regarding Madison's "general welfare" point of view reflects the words "Object of beneficence." That certainly would be one version of general welfare, but so would the:

1. Prevention of carcinogenic drugs being sold as medicines.  
2. Marketing cigarettes to children, when anyone with a brain knows they cause cancer. 

3. Selling a car that blows up (and the manufacturer knows it) on rear impact.  

4. Allowing unrestricted dumping of pcbs into streams, etc.

Get the picture? General welfare can just as well mean protecting those of us, who are part of the consumption chain, from large businesses who only care about the bottom line, and will do whatever they can to enhance that.
 
If you believe major corporations have never produced, marketed, and sold harmful products, which none of their executives would ever touch, then you probably would have believed the seven tobacco company executives who testified to Congress that they honestly believed nicotine is non-addictive. The "nine year old and his Legos" paranoia is simply a typical extremist scare tactic. It is exactly on the same plane with Palin's "death panels."  If nine year-olds care about reusing, recycling, and are aware as they grow up that we don't have an endless supply of resources (we don't) - then good. The analysis of the '50s "consumerist" policy statement is not out of context or inaccurate. Of course the gratuitous union bashing deserves a comment. I'm still trying to find out how or why teachers' unions are a part of this picture.  Collateral union bashing is another typical free shot at anything less than reactionary right wing.  I get it that corporations (one of which undoubtedly funded this "non-rebuttal rebuttal") don't like unions.  I also get it that rather than focus on quality of life issues in the 1945-60s workplace, American corporations and large companies (Ford was first) simply threw money at unions (welfare capitalism, remember?), in the form of "shut up, take the money, and be a droid" contracts. When we ruled the world auto industry, Detroit did this all the time.  When corporate mismanagement lost that lead, (Unions didn't design, market, or sell those cars) the execs who superintended the collapse turned on unions and their over-generous pay and benefits packages to point the finger.
 
One of the large lies, frequently told buy both parties, is that we can always produce our way out of a deficit. Reagan actually said we could reduce taxes and do it. You have seen the graph of national debt through his 8 years (triple the debt from start to finish).  I'm no fan of Greenpeace, but they are not simply wild-eyed fanatics like PETA.  The "we can make it smaller, therefore it is less garbage" argument is enough to make one puke. If you want to see the poster child for planned obsolence and perceived obsolesce, I have two words for you - APPLE & SONY. Do some research of your own on how the Ipod/Iphone has been constantly modified to make you believe you just gotta have the latest model. Check on how Sony's market strategy is to debut a product every two weeks, which is "different," "improved," or "new." Their test bed is Japan.  Reflect on how the automobile industry from 1950 to around 1975 changed the body design of their new cars significantly every year - can you say perceived obsolence?  
 
And last but not least, just as an example of how you can spin literally anything into your own personal fiction:  The extreme conservatives in this country love to scream about how Government is "too big," "too invasive." "too involved in people's lives."  This is not my interpretation; this is the general tone of the Limbaughs, Becks, O'Reillys, etc.  Where were these loudmouths when Terri Schiavo's husband wanted to terminate life support?  Shoving a proposal through a Republican Congress to interfere with Florida law, that's where. Where were these libertarians in 2000 when the Florida election results were being contested? - Interfering in a case, where, again, Florida state law provided a remedy. Where are these libertarians when women want the right to choose their reproductive options - doing everything they can to muster the strength to tell them what they must or must not do. Not exactly libertarian, is it?  Is the Patriot Act consistent with this libertarian spirit?  They want stiff penalties for drug abusers (until Rush Limbaugh is found to be one, and then it's a "sickness').  They don't want to spend on AIDS research until Rock Hudson (one of "them") has AIDS.  They hate gays, until their child is gay. (Ask Dick Cheney how that'll turn you around!)
 
When Tom Delay was Speaker of the House and violently pro-life (and adamantly against anyone else having choice), he was also intimately involved with bringing manufacturing and assembly clothing plants owned by American Companies to Saipan, technically an American territory. The reason was that by using cheap Chinese laborers, they could produce clothing cheaply and still label it "Made in the USA."  When some of these girls, who had not much else going for them, became pregnant by supervisors, some of them American, Delay proposed that they should be offered abortions or returned to China. When a Republican colleague questioned him about these apparently contradictory points of view, Delay threatened him with loss of his committee assignments unless he dropped the inquiry. I guess pro-choice/pro-life is an argument he reserves for Americans, huh?  Delay and his kind are typical.
 
All in all, if thinking that those of us who are fortunate enough to be comfortably fed, housed, and clothed have an obligation as humans to care about those less fortunate, then yes, call me liberal.  If believing that the Enlightenment and its scientific advances meant that science really can tell us about things like Global warming, and that we ought to be concerned when polar bears can't find ice floes until a month later than 10 years ago, then yes, call me liberal.  If believing the science that says acid rain is a product of industrial pollutants, specifically coal smokestack emissions, then call me liberal.  If thinking that there is a lunatic fringe of religious bigots and hate mongers that have blackened the reputation of a lot of respectable persons who simply have a different economic point of view (real Republicans), then call me liberal.
 
If we believe that the "reason 'they' hate us is because of our freedom" ("W" after 911), then we are blind to how much of that hatred has been earned by our corporate policies and our insistence that (among other things) cheap gas is our "right" as Americans. It's ok for us to warn Brazilians not to cut down the rain forest, but God forbid we should sign the Kyoto protocol regarding carbon emissions. We consistently act solely in our own interests in this area and scorn any of our fellow Americans who point it out.

One of the difficult things about my job [as a teacher] is dealing with large numbers of wonderful young persons who have been so indoctrinated at home that they may never learn how to think for themselves. You are NOT one of those kids, by the way. My opinions are my own, formed by a lifetime of study, observation, and evaluation. Many people these days, especially adults, simply believe the latest sound bite, buzz word, or fear monger.  They also are willing to accept baseless arguments, from either party, on face value. Talk to someone who actually can't afford health care (there are millions. easy to find), and see how he or she is doing. Check the balance sheet of any national health insurance provider and see how they're doing, and get back to me.

Mr. Dorman  
 
Mr. Dorman,
 
I can tell you put a lot thought into this, which I am grateful for, and I also hope this didn't take too much of your time. Anyway, as far as unregulated laissez faire goes, Adam Smith made the point that a bread maker doesn't make bread to feed other people, but to help himself. In order for a company to make a profit, it has to remain competitive through technological breakthroughs, product differentiation, etc. My point being is that consumers are given many options, low prices, etc; so in that sense there is a promotion of general welfare. This, however, does not include some companies' willingness to impose externalities so they don't have to cover the true cost to make a product. In that regard we need some minimum regulation to curtail such activity. Realistically, you can't expect corporations to just give money to charity or fund cancer research; how many people do that with their own money? Then again, you could make the case that people don't have billions of dollars in assets, but for all their wealth, corporations are up to their nose in debt.

I see your point with the Madison comment, and at the end of day that issue is just a difference in interpretation of the Constitution. Who can say what our founding fathers would think of today's America? Although, it would be interesting to know. The whole cutting taxes with Reagan was because Laffer had come up what's known as the Laffer curve. It is basically a graph of an upside U, and it states that at a 0% tax you receive zero revenue, and at 100% tax you still receive zero revenue. My point is that at the peak of the U is the best place for a tax, and anywhere past the U results in an increase in revenue when you cut taxes. The reason Reagan was so "obsessed" with this idea is, just as you, it came from a lifetime of experience. During his career as an actor he made only four movies a year, because the tax on the fifth one was so high he lost all incentive to make another.

The perceived obsolence and planned obsolence, I thought, were interesting because, quite frankly, I had never heard of those terms. Also, I am aware that these companies like Apple and Sony simply make a bigger hard drive or change a color, and all of a sudden the product is "new." However, no one is forcing you to buy these products. I, myself, don't have an Ipod, Iphone, or anything electronically fancy other than my laptop (which I consider more of a necessity for school than anything else). It's not because I can't afford one, I simply never saw myself using it enough to warrant a purchase. In general, the whole obsolence business seemed a little far-fetched. Simply put, companies want you to buy their products, and they'll market them anyway they want, be it new, classic, original, or remake.

With regards to healthcare, it comes down to which of the plans they're talking about. Obama said something about comparing it to the post office where you have the USPS and private companies like Fedex and UPS. That doesn't seem too terrible an idea, but the system in England, Canada, and the rest of Europe for that matter, isn't all that great. I've read reports about Englishmen with curable cornea diseases, who were denied treatment until after they went blind in one eye because that qualified as "proof." Then the Canadian system isn't much of a solution, either. Many Canadians come down to the U.S. to get proper treatment because they can't get it in their own country. In fact, I've read that Americans have greater access to more advanced treatments than do Canadians. Also, a universal system of medicine begs the question of whether or not there will be competition. Without competition, I'm sure there will be slower advancements made in the medical field.  It's the same thing we saw in Soviet Russia, where there was no incentive to be creative and inventive. In addition, sure, America acts in its self interest, but so does every other country. What would the world be like if Russia, Venezuela, Iran, Libya, etc., were in our position? I think America does a decent job showing self constraint.

Lastly, I get what you're saying about people not thinking for themselves, but are any of our opinions truly original? My parents are pretty ignorant when it comes to politics, so the only way I learned more was from television, Internet, or Associated Press, which runs stories on my web page. In fact, my father understands Italian politics better than American, but that could be because of a language issue. It's a shame, though, that more people are so narrowed minded and forget to keep an open mind. Limbaugh is one, Bill Maher, Beck, Chris Mathews, they are all pretty stubborn people, and I have never seen any of them change their mind on any topic.
 
"Ben"

"Ben,"
 
Ah, if that were only true, but the fact is that over the last 30 years of unrestrained greed, CEO salaries have gone from an average of 40 times that of their average workers' salary to in excess of 500 times that salary. while over the last 4 years average household income has been flat. In America right now, the wealth of the top 1% exceeds the combined assets of the bottom 95%.  Still think we practice restraint?  These numbers are worse than just before the crash of 1929, and they reflect the validity of my point, which is that since about 1955, when the top income tax bracket was 90%, through the 1960s, when it was 75%, into the Reagan years when it was still over 50%, we have had the same horseshit shoveled down our throats - "Cut taxes on the top earners and grow the economy." "W" was talked into it because among the many things of which he is/was abysmally ignorant. Economics is number 1! This guy took economic advice from, among others, a VP who left his job as CEO of Halliburton (huge 30 million dollar severance package, thank you). and became the head of an energy task force made up of his cronies. Can you say morally bankrupt conflict of interest? Palin said it just yesterday, as if it's not the reason we have just endured what history will probably label the worst presidency since Harding. Bear in mind, the guy who just left the White House couldn't have set in your and my classroom - can't read on grade level. Pathetic!

 And don't compare us to a murderer (other countries we don't like) and say we're better because we're just muggers. Do you measure your moral standards against others, or against what your soul tells you is the right thing to do? I know the answer to that because I know and respect your character!  Why should we as a nation do any less? How does Apple offering a wider range of products translate to promoting the general welfare? Offering consumers more choices simply is not a humanitarian act; it simply promotes Apple's welfare, and you're way too smart to believe otherwise. You are also way too smart to believe that either you or I who practice restraint as consumers are reflective of the manufacturers' target audience. That's like saying the behavior of Mother Teresa was above reproach, therefore all women are like her. That audience is the TV viewer who watches "King of Queens" and never processes that a UPS deliveryman (I think that's his job) can't afford a third of the mortgage payment on a house in Queens such as he supposedly lives in (someone actually did the math and the research).  We get a fantasy world, both in the media and from the corporate world.  We gave Goldman Sachs alone over 12 billion dollars and spent less that 4 billion on education last year; and yes, either party would have done the same. There is no "great idea" as to how to fix the economy when the disaster is founded on a shell game of derivatives, mortgage bundles, hedge funds and 30% credit card accounts.  If the current system, devoid of any real restraint, is as good as you are defending it to be, why have we in the last ten years reversed the trend of the 60s when the largest wealth transfer in America was to the middle class?  Currently, the largest wealth transfer is from the middle class. I have lived through these changes, so I'm not simply relating the ravings of some radical true believer. I don't mean this to be harsh, but at your age, never having actually been in the real world of self-support, you cannot be dealing from experience, so I must assume you have heard this point of view somewhere else. There is a reason more young people are moving back home in their 20s and early thirties today than ever before. What do you think it is? The American Dream of marrying and buying a home is farther away from a higher percentage of Americans than at any time in the past 50 years, and has been trending that way for the last 8. If the system, as it is, works, why is that?

Regarding health care: Take the worst horror story about France's health care system and spin it as if everyone in France has the same experience. That's essentially what you did, and by the way, what the super interest group lobby of insurance companies, tobacco industry, lawyers, and hospitals are doing.  Do you think there are any horrific stories associated with HMOs in America, or even worse, with those who have no insurance at all? What you did is called sophistry - taking one bad situation or example and applying it to an entire system. A man in Tampa several years ago went into the hospital for an amputation of a foot and the OR staff cut off the wrong foot! Clearly, by your standard, that proves all American hospitals are unsafe. Sounds silly when you think about it, doesn't it?  In truth, France spends 10% of GDP on health care, and they are, as a people, healthier and live longer than the US, where we spend just over 15% of GDP on health care. For everyone who bashes European single payer systems (many of those are the persons here, who don't want health care reform), there are Brits, Canadians, and others who cry "bullshit!"  What bothers me the most about this is that the anti-reform groups are doing what they do in the name of free-market capitalism in an industry, which in many cases, (State of Alabama is a good example) operate in an essentially competition-free environment, in which they simply cherry pick those who are healthy (and represent the least possibility of claims) and reject or drop those who actually need health care. The result is that we pay hundreds of thousands of tax dollars, in some cases, for the child born in an ER to a mother with no prenatal care and any of a list of gestational problems, which 400 or 500 dollars in insured prenatal care would/could have prevented. Again, forget the trash you're being told by the fear mongers; my wife has observed this over 25 years of neo-natal nursing.  You would have a very tough time finding a significant number of ER staff who don't support universal health care, because much of what they deal with daily should not be ER cases, but are, because the patient can't afford a simple family practice visit, and consequently waits until it's critical instead of routine.

Even though I am personally concerned about the flood of undocumented immigrants coming to America, it would still be cheaper to allow them health care than to provide (as we do and certainly will continue to do) emergency services when they present at a hospital. It is economically sound, but to the haters like Glenn Beck and Lou Dobbs, it's heresy.  The most recent polls show that fully 2/3 of Americans support a public option for health insurance. You'd never know it from the mouths on conservative talk radio, would you? Corporate whores like the Limbaughs, Becks, and O'Reillys make their money, not by appealing to the best in us, but to the worst. The horrible thing is that many persons too ignorant to do the research believe them. The same is true for the ultra liberals, as well. It's easier to let someone tell you what to do/believe, etc. Far wiser men and economists than I have for years noted the increasing inequity in America, especially in the erosion of the viability of what used to be our great strength - the middle class. Last point; don't feed me that crap about why Reagan believed in supply-side economics (which even his VP and eventual successor didn't). Don't you remember me reading to you the comments of the Nobel laureate, Republican advisor/economist who went to see him?  He (Reagan) admittedly had absolutely no reason for his economic belief other than he believed it. BY HIS OWN ADMISSION!  If there is a real reason, it is probably that the Kennedy tax cut actually did turn the economy around when Johnson kicked it through Congress after JFK's death, but Reagan could not comprehend that there were other market forces related to the space program and ramping up defense spending for Viet Nam, which caused that. Also, he only made 4 movies in a good year, because he was not only a mediocre president, he was worse than that as an actor (lol).  PS: If you really believe Adam Smith is relevant here, get a time machine and go to the golden age of Social Darwinist, unregulated Rockefeller-Morgan-Carnegie capitalism, and see how you like it.  No one had health care then, except the rich.
 
 
PPS: Don't sell your conservative friends short.  They all changed their mind about drugs when Limbaugh was revealed to be an addict , and many of them became more tolerant of cross-dressing when Rudy Giuliani showed them how.  And by the way. if you really followed Bill Maher, he has been remarkably even handed in his treatment of both sides of many issues, including Iraq. But you see, I actually watch him, so I would know that. By the way - "Religulous" - boffo, 5 stars, ya oughta see it.

Mr. Dorman

DISCOURSE TO BE CONTINUED NEXT WEEK

Mike Dorman is a 26-year U.S. Navy veteran, a 20-year classroom U.S. History teacher, part time golfer, and full time curmudgeon. He has been married to wife Emily - a neo-natal nurse - for 45 years; the two are parents to local vocal talents Juli (The WIZ) Ohrberg and Singing Realtor/Restaurant Reviewer - David Dorman.