Why customer service is so horrible... and likely to get worse

Under the Theory of Competitive Advantage, it is advantageous for companies to encourage the idea that all "customer service" is slow, unresponsive, aggravating, and generally BAD. Why?

Because customer service after the sale is a net loss to the company's profits. The whole profit aspect of producing a widget is in how much you can cut costs to get the raw materials and intermediate goods to make your thingy as cheaply as possible, then selling it at a price that brings in the biggest profit possible.

Customer service drains money away from these profits. Ideally, a company would like to make a product, sell it, and never hear from you again unless you're either buying another product from them or recommending that someone else does. Paying for customer service staff (even the offshore kind making a buck a day) is a complete and total loss, and is generally seen as a "cost of doing business" which would rather be eliminated any way it can to boost those ever-important dividends.

Used to be, companies thought they could get a competitive advantage by offering GREAT customer service. Thus, you had repairmen show up at your home (at no additional cost), gas-station attendants who filled you up, wiped your windshield and checked your tires, and could actually talk to a human being on the phone when you called with a problem. Then some nameless, faceless person with a "bright idea" (as seen from the corporate boardroom) realized that if you made customer service a universally unpleasant experience for people, the very term "customer service" would develop a negative connotation and most people would avoid it... and thus you could cut costs in that very money-sucking area.

So in the last 30 years or so we've seen company after company giving "lousy" customer service. Coincidence? Maybe. But If You Think Like A Corporate Executive it makes perfect sense: if everyone has lousy customer service, customers won't bother using it and we won't have to spend any of our dividend checks paying for it. If it becomes the national (or global) paradigm that customer service is worthless, then corporations get to cut even further back on the quality of that service until they are left with the most limited legal limits of it (essentially, to offer a refund or replacement if the product is not functional upon delivery... everything else is pretty much a "too bad" scenario).

Sure, people will still demand their problems be fixed if something is badly wrong... but this new mindset being imposed on consumers is one of "oh heck, why bother, just go buy another one, it's easier than going through the hassle of customer service". And, of course, unless people buy a different brand (which is often owned by the same company anyway), they end up giving the corporations a double-purchase... a double-win for the company.

And with many retail stores now restricting purchase returns to 30 days... sometimes even 14 or as little as 7... this means that if you buy it and it messes up within a couple weeks, you're screwed. The retail store is no longer the convenient "No problem, we'll take it back if it breaks" solution for consumers. In fact, corporate manufacturers are making this harder on retailers, so it's not even the stores' fault... many stores are changing their returns policy precisely because manufacturers and distributors and tightening them up.

Think this isn't something that goes through the minds of corporate executives daily? Call customer service about your newest electronic gadget and get a wake-up call. Then ask grandma what it was like when the TV technician showed up at her house... for free, always polite and helpful... to fix her console. THEN you will understand how much has changed in the last few decades. And how much we need to develop a sense of "customer SERVICE" back into the corporate world... in other words, if they have crappy service, DON'T BUY THEIR STUFF.

Most important quote of the day and the implications for America

I read this today, and the profundity of it made me realize it needed to be said over and over:

"The standards and quality of live that have been achieved in the United States in general, and in other Western states, didn't come about because because of some mythical invisible hand or because of industry insights into human dignity or the needs of labor. The safety and wage standards that exist today came about because workers in communities across America struggled to change conditions that often pitted a specific industry -- which often had interlocking interests with other industries -- against American labor." "Like the peasants of medieval Europe, [labor] needed work and were forced into conditions which which overlords could dominate virtually all aspects of their lives. Rebellion and the introduction of enlightened leaders paved the way for improvements in [labor's] standard of living ... [j]ust as the progressive ideas of democracy and capitalism were fought by conservative aristocrats in Europe, issues related to social and economic justice in America have always been fought by forces who warn of impending doom if changes are made." -"The Myth of the Free Market: The Role of the State in a Capitalist Economy" by Mark A. Martinez, Kumarian Press, 2009.

Understand this: conservatives, no matter what they SAY in public, abhore the middle class and labor. It goes against everything they believe, which is that there are those who are destined to be priviledged and those who are not. While a few still hew to the belief that "rugged entrepreneurs" have a place at the table, that is an idea that only comes from the middle 16th Century... those who harken back to a more "civilized" day (i.e. when blood-lines meant everything and peasants knew their place) have it engraved in their souls that nobody is entitled to anything unless you belong to the modern-day nobility. Anyone else is an upstart and pretender, and should be treated as such.

Conservatives, in other words, consider YOU inferior, worthless except for the labor you provide, and essentially meaningless in the world at large. Not exactly what you hear them say at election time, eh? But down deep, that's exactly what they are thinking and how they will treat YOU if you are stupid enough to once again elect them into positions of political power. Did I say "stupid"? Sure, because that's exactly how they view YOU if you either vote for them (and don't belong to the top 1% of the wealthy in this country) or stay home and encourage others to stay home to avoid voting for Democrats who have "disappointed" YOU in the past to "send a message". Do you want to know the message you're sending?

"Yes, I want more plutocracy, more corporate control over my life, less freedom and liberty, a militarized police-state, someone to tell me what I can and can't do with my own body, and more income and social inequality, because those lousy Democrats never deliver when I elect THEM into office".

If you're happy with the status quo, then by all means vote any way you want. If you think letting everything we've worked for during the past 100+ years is worth fighting for, then vote Democratic in 2012 and henceforth. Because even if the Dems have been infiltrated by the same corporate interests that busted unions in the 1930s and struggle every day to dismantle the New Deal and Great Society, they're still a damned sight better than the other side that makes no bones whatsoever about destroying every social and political gain the middle class has made in the last century for one and only one purpose: to once again gain the titles and powers of nobility they so desperately miss.

And don't think for a SECOND that they're not drooling at the prospect.

Luscious Crab Cakes

I've been making crab cakes this way for years; it's my own recipe (as far as I know... I kind of made it up as I went along) but you're welcome to share with friends if you like it. There are a lot of variations to this; change the veggie combination, add fresh garlic instead of powdered, use an egg or just substitute the equivalent amount of water, etc. You just can't mess it up too much by switching things around, just don't overcook them because they get tough as a brick if you do.

LUSCIOUS CRAB CAKES

1 pound fresh crab meat, carefully shelled (or 3 6-oz cans of crab)
1 large egg (or approximately 1/4 cup water or milk)
1 tablespoon butter or margarine
1/2 cup yellow cornmeal (substitute 3/4 cup of bread crumbs or for extra richness use 3/4 cup of crumbled Club^® Crackers; if you do substitute, you will need both the egg AND the 1/4 cup water or milk)
1/8 teaspoon cayenne powder (substitute chili powder or your favorite spicy stuff)
1 tablespoon Worstershire sauce
1/4 cup each diced sweet yellow onions, celery, parsley
1/2 cup diced cooked shrimp (salad shrimp work best and don't need chopping)
1/2 teaspoon garlic powder (substitute 2 tablespoons chopped fresh garlic or to taste)
Salt, pepper to taste
Lemon juice
Olive oil (about 3 to 5 tablespoons total, use as needed during frying)

Pre-heat olive oil in large frying pan over medium-high heat. Combine cornmeal (or substitutes) with crab, shrimp, diced veggies, egg (or substitutes), butter or margarine, cayenne, Worstershire, garlic powder, salt and pepper in large bowl. Mix thoroughly until all ingredients are fully moist and mixture gets lumpy. Form into fist-sized balls, then flatten to form patties approximately 3/4 inch thick, making sure the edges are smooth (moisten some more if they seem crumbly). Carefully place crabcakes into frying pan to avoid splashing hot oil. Cover and cook approximately 3 to 4 minutes per side. Add oil to pan if necessary and repeat until all crabcakes are complete. Drizzle lightly with lemon juice and serve plain or with your favorite sauce (tartar, teriyaki, oyster and even ketchup all work nicely). Number of crabcakes depends on how big you make the patties, but usually makes between 6 and 10 total.

Palin's Comic Book View of History: Paul Revere's Ride

Apologists for Palin immediately struck against the "lame-stream media" laughing at their darling for getting the history wrong (again) about one of our iconic First Patriots.



There is a tiny bit of merit in their arguments, particularly the chuckles that Revere warned the British. In a sense, he actually did at one point, though it was never his intention to tell the British anything. He was captured (along with his two fellow riders, William Dawes and Dr. Samuel Prescott, who are often forgotten in retellings of the famous Midnight Ride story) by a British patrol and informed them that he had been raising the alarm and they would be met by "five hundred Americans" ready to fight.

So that part of the account Palin gave had a grain of truth to it. But her word pudding, as incoherent as it was, didn't exactly give us any indication that she was talking about that incident at all (or was even aware of it). To hear her tell it, Revere might as well have been standing on a rooftop waving his fist at the British defiantly, a patriotic glow emanating from his body, as he warned the cowering British army that they were already defeated and might as well slink back to their ships and sail away.

Beyond the comic-book glorification Palin (and so many others who adore her) have of American history, the other details of her brief blizzard of nonsense lack historical basis as well.

She seems to think Revere shot his gun and rang bells. He was both unarmed and had no bells, at least as far as the historical account goes (although some pictorial depictions of him do show him ringing what looks like a teacher's school-bell, so it's hard to tell for sure). But by all written accounts, it was the people he warned from house to house that shot the guns and range the bells, not himself.

While Revere did in fact "warn" the British (while being detained and under threat of having his brains blown out) that's a little different than Palin's embellishing it with him telling the British that "we're going to be free" and "they weren't going to be taking away our arms".

Although he was either a member of or sympathetic to the Sons of Liberty, a group of Americans who (sometimes violently) fought depredations of the British against Americans, few of them wanted independence from Britain; most of them simply wanted fairness and self-determination under British rule. So while I'm no expert on Revere, there's a good chance Revere no more wanted independence from the Crown than most of the rest of the colonists did in 1775. Up until this time, in fact, they were sending delegation after delegation to Britain petitioning to allow the colonies representation in Parliament, hardly the actions of people who hated the Crown so much they wanted complete freedom.

It wasn't until AFTER the battle at Lexington and Concord that most colonists realized that the Brits were going to ruthlessly put their foot on the Americans and thus the first serious discussion of real independence rather than self-determination took shape, leading to the Declaration of Independence a year later.

The best resource for Revere comes of course from his own accounts as well as those of his companions. The website for the Paul Revere House is here: http://www.paulreverehouse.org/index.html

It might do for Sarah Palin, as she visits all of these historic sites, to brush up a little better before spouting more word coleslaw in front of the cameras. While entertaining, we must remember that a good number of Americans consider her a leading light of Patriotic All-Americanness, and the more we encourage her by putting her ridiculous clown-show on the air and Internet the more her fans believe she's the model for their children and their children's-children. Do we really want to embolden future generations of historical know-nothings?

(Hat tip to Douglas Redecopp for pointing me to the apologist's article)

They aren't going to stop unless we stop them

I encourage everyone to read the excellent op-ed by William Rivers Pitt in TruthOut on March 10, 2011, "Then They Came for the Trade Unionists"

Here's my favorite take-away from it:

Mr. Niemoller wrote his poem decades ago. It might read like this today:

First they declared corporations were "people," and I didn't complain because I'm already a person.

Then they made unlimited money "speech," and I didn't complain because the American Dream says I'll be rich someday, too.

Then they commandeered the means of production by shipping our greatest strength - manufacturing - overseas, because they don't have bothersome unions over there, and I didn't complain because WalMart has cheap stuff.

Then they bought Congress so they could write the laws, and I didn't complain because I can’t be bothered to vote.

Then they bought the Supreme Court so they could cement their rule, and I didn't complain because I don't have time to pay attention.

Then they bought the news so they could convince everyone it's always been this way, and I didn't complain because it's always been this way.

Then they manhandled an election and I didn't complain because I'm not from Florida.

Then they lied us into wars and I didn't complain because I'm not a soldier, or an Iraqi, or an Afghani.

Then millions died for profit and I didn't complain because the graphics on the news were totally awesome.

Then they started locking people up because they said they could and I didn't complain because nobody locked me up.

Then they started spying on everyone because they said they could and I didn't complain because I'm a real American.

Then they came for the worker, but thanks to supply-side trickle-down economics, I don't have a job.

Updated: Nuclear Power: Burnt-Out Light Bulb of the Millennium

Update: I posted this just a few hours before the horrific 8.9 earthquake in Japan, and I am now hearing reports of a potential nuclear reactor disaster in the making. At the very least, Japanese officials are planning to release radioactive gases to relieve pressure on the damaged reactor in hopes of preventing a complete blow-out. For more on the Japanese disaster, the Huffington Post has live updates.

Original Post:

On the subject of nuclear power as an "alternative energy source":

If we even have to CONSIDER the possibility that any form of "fuel" is so dangerous that we have to take into account the threat that some terrorist organizatin with use it in some kind of "weapon of mass destruction", then why in the HELL are we even using this shit?

Not to mention the huge costs of building the plants in the first place (which gets passed down to consumers), the huge costs of storing the nuclear "fuel", the huge costs of storing the nuclear "waste", and the huge costs of even the miniscule chance of a single Chernobyl-like event... just ONE, no matter how "safe" they say it is nowadays, is one too many (especially as densely populated as America is, not to mention how the wind currents carry particulates pretty evenly across the U.S.; if you don't believe that, then why do you see red sunsets in Minnesota, New York and Alabama when California is having a wildfire?).

While I'm all for real renewables, the idea of adding nuclear power to that mix is ludicrous. In my view, it's little more than a sop to the nuke industry and the corporate giants who back it. Let that dog die in peace; it's currently 20% of our generation capacity, but it needs to be replaced as soon as possible with actual renewables that can't be used to some day dirty-bomb our cities... or accidentally irradiate an area the size of Texas for decades to come.

Why some cry joy, and others weep, about the revolution in Egypt

So while most of the world's common people rise up and applaud the success of the revolt in Egypt, why are so many American conservatives appearing on Fox News and other friendly media outlets decrying this as anything but a reason to celebrate? Why are they warning that "the Middle East has no history of democracy" and thus this will lead to chaos and terrible, terrible things (as if the burgeoning democracies within what was formerly the Iron Curtain had any history of democracy)? Why is Glenn Beck warning of "chaos" and "community organizers" and a return of the Caliphate? Why are these conservatives... who will take any opportunity to wrap themselves in the flag, call themselves Patriots, and claim to represent the "true values" of America, especially "freedom"... so appalled by the revolts in Tunisia, Egypt, and soon presumably to a dictatorship near you?

I could get into the various psychologies of conservatives, or point to political or ideological shifts that have occurred over the years, or perhaps even try to pull the race card and say that European democracies arising from tyranny are OK but those in the Middle East are not simply due to the fact that one has predominantly White populations and the other has mostly "brown people". But none of those are satisfactory, and ultimately lead to unresolvable arguments and (as in the case of the race card) may be largely untrue. But one thing stands out to me here. While claiming to be "freedom-loving Patriots", conservatives are at their philosophical roots anything but.

A little nutshell history lesson which we have as a nation conveniently forgotten: When our own country was but a colony in thrall to the whims of Mother England, a few brave souls put their lives and livelihoods on the line to stand up against tyranny. Some had been calling for change for years, and were ready to rise up; others, unsure, were tentative at first but eventually joined the cause. Still others did not join until British soldiers ravaged their homes and farms. Those who fought for fair treatment by the mother country did so at first as loyal citizens of England... until finally, they realized there was no path open to them but full independence. These revolutionaries then began calling themselves Patriots.

There were a number of colonists, however, who wanted nothing to do with the fighting, and wished only to remain loyal to England. There were various reasons for this: sentimentality, vested business interests with England, a natural pacifism, and many others. But in some cases, rather than simply remaining loyal to the Crown, they actively fought against the Patriots with the written word, public speech, and often with musket and sword. These people who sided with England against their fellow colonists were branded Tories; not traitors, per se, but still enemies to those who sought freedom and liberty.

Many Tories escaped to Canada and other British colonies once fighting broke out, and throughout the long Revolutionary War. Many others emigrated once the Patriots had won their battle and were finally independent of English rule. But many had stayed, and during the long healing process following the British defeat these fellow colonists... family, friends, and neighbors of those who had either remained neutral or joined the Patriots in the fight... rejoined society and began actively working to integrate themselves into the new political system that was taking shape.

Today's conservatives are the intellectual and philosophical offspring of the original Tories, whether they had actual ancestral ties to anyone in our war of independence. To understand this, one has only to look at the motivations of most of the Tories (as expressed in their own writings and speeches of the day): sanctity of hearth and home; limits to freedom and expression; loyalty to the authority of the Crown and its appointed governors; and a fear of "chaos" and "mob rule". These are exactly the tropes modern conservatives use, in modified form: family values and culture issues; using government to limit free speech and privacy if it offends their notion of what is and isn't allowable (re: censorship, '20's Prohibition); undying loyalty to icons of conservatism (Reagan, Bush, Norquist... not so much Buckley anymore) and any sitting President that happens to belong to their own party; and of course, an absolute dread of democracy erupting in the Middle East or any other place that is deemed "scary".

So while you marvel at the audacity of conservatives who claim the mantle of patriotism and freedom as their own, who denounce liberals or anyone else as "anti-American" because they aren't sufficiently conservative, remember that these flag-waving so-called "real Americans" are espousing the exact same principles that their intellectual and philosophical ancestors did 230 years ago: as Tories. The true Patriots in America are those who stand on the side of rule by, for and of the PEOPLE, always and without reservation. Democracy is messy, and revolutions don't always come out the way the revolutionaries wish, but never forget that if you are a Real American, a Patriot, you will remember who the enemies of freedom and self-rule were in our past, and recognize them in our present.

"We need to fight back against corporatism!" OK, sure. How?

I was recently asked about my anti-corporatism stance (actually, it's more of an "anti-corporate-personhood" stance, as I have no problem whatsoever with corporations per se, just with them being granted the rights of human beings when they have none of the limitations). In response to a statement I had made, "...the corporate monstrosities we've allowed to be created must be dismantled", I received the following response:

"How?"

Good question.

(Book cover from Sheldon S. Wolin's "Democracy Inc." (2008, Princeton University Press; original image and new 2010 edition of the book are available at www.press.princeton.edu/titles/9175.html)

I never claimed it would be easy. The problem began in 1886 when corporations were anointed by the Supreme Court of the United States as "people" and they've had nearly 125 years to get to this point. And I will admit, it may be too late to put the genie back in the bottle. Globalization has created a worldwide economic dependency on cheap trade; our country and others have shredded old tariffs and regulations that served quite well for decades; transnational non-state corporate actors are beholden to no particular government (much less possess a sense of "national pride"); and as Sheldon S. Wolin puts it in his book "Democracy Inc.", a sort of "inverted totalitarianism" has been instituted in the United States and other countries that doesn't use force to get it's way as in the bad old 20th Century, but instead relies on the apathy and perceived helplessness of the populace to do what it wants. And the "it" in that sentence doesn't even have a face, as old-fashioned totalitarianism did; it is an amorphous blob of largely anonymous corporations, their paid-for political public faces, and constant media disinformation and entertaining distractions.

Before any effective effort can be made to eliminate the forces of "inverted totalitarianism", however, the first target must be to raise awareness and break the hold on the minds of the populace, who have been lulled into a frustrating but paralyzing sense of apathy, a "that's just the way it is, you can't do anything about it" mentality. We all know that this mentality has been broken before many times in our history, and it can be broken again, but we're up against a foe that is by comparison almost supernatural in power. Corporatism pervades every aspect of our lives, is largely unseen and unfelt, and yet is all around us, all the time. We have become so dependent upon the fruits of corporatism, that we can only perceive it now when those fruits are taken away. It seems insurmountable for mere individuals to wrest control of their lives back from these seemingly invincible "super-persons".

There are ways to fight back, though. And these ways use the one advantage we have over the corporation: we are individuals, capable of both individual and group action at the local level.

One suggestion (buy local and avoid the big corporations) often sounds pie-in-the-sky, but it actually works, as long as we get enough people to buy from businesses and farms in our own communities. Even then, we're helping the big corporations, because the local businesses have to get their products, bank loans or fertilizers from somewhere (usually eventually tracking back to China and Indonesia), but it's a start.

Other ways we can fight corporatism is to work to get anti-corporate leaders into local elected seats. Try for higher offices too, but don't worry too much about those until we have city councils, county boards, local judges, etc. who will fight corporatism and stand up for their local businesses again. When you have tens of thousands of small communities push back against the big corporations across the country, we'll see some changes at the national level, and to some extent worldwide.

And as city and county anti-corporatism takes hold, it will be easier for it to spread to state legislatures and executives and eventually to the national level. As more state and local judges are selected who fend off corporate attacks and set local precedents, those may also filter up into the federal courts, first in the districts, then appellate, then perhaps the SCOTUS. No matter at what level, though, precedents in law will be set that will serve as the sand around which the pearl will be formed, until one day, perhaps in another 125 years, we will finally overturn the last of the "corporations as people" rulings and we'll be free of corporatism once and for all.

But that's just here in the U.S. We created this mess, and it's spread like a cancer worldwide. So as we're doing this locally, we have to work to change trade agreements (we can do this at a local level as well, at first, and work up), we have to rebuild regulations, we have to work to re-establish worker-based unions (many of the big unions today have become as bad as the big corporations... the elites run them just as they run the corporations, the government, and the courts).

Corporatism, just like globalization, isn't "all bad". There are good aspects to them as well. Globalization does help "flatten" the economies of the world (much as I hate to agree with Thomas Friedman), and does serve to raise living standards in developing countries. Corporatism in and of itself isn't bad; it provides economies of scale that allow us to accomplish things unheard of a century ago. But both of these, allowed to operate with no regulation or controls, is destroying local communities, local businesses, and local jobs. It is a madness that simply must stop before the last tree is cut down and the last frog goes extinct, and before the planet is completely uninhabitable.

Progressives: Making Progress or Points? Something-Or-Nothing vs. All-Or-Nothing

FIRST, A LITTLE BACKGROUND ON THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM

In the United States (as opposed to most other democratic nations on earth) we tend to have a pretty one-dimensional political spectrum. There is a bit of two-dimensionality about it, and nobody fits entirely into one category (and in fact some fit two or more, depending on the issue), but basically it looks like this:

There are extreme right-wing radicals.
There are libertarians.
There are conservatives.
There are right-leaning moderates.
There are centrists.
There are left-leaning moderates.
There are liberals.
There are progressives.
There are extreme left-wing radicals.

(By the way, these are not my terms; these are definitions provided by most political science texts).

The terminology of "extreme" and "radical" seems easy to nit-pick... it's all a matter of opinion, right? Not really. The key characteristic that most social scientists use when applying the "extreme" and "radical" labels to the political spectrum is based on two measures:

1) "Extreme" is based on the size of the population per capita that hold such beliefs, and;
2) "Radical" is based on the rigidity of the beliefs (ie. ideological purism)

What this means is that those who fit either end of the spectrum and earn the labels of "extreme" and "radical" are people who represent a tiny minority that is uncompromisingly hidebound to their beliefs. They see any deviation from ideological purity as (at best) selling out or (at worst) treason. They refuse to believe, or even deeply investigate, explanations that do not fit within their worldview. They eject anyone from their "inner circle" who openly disagrees with the circle's views (or who accepts the views of those outside of the circle). They are easily convinced that there are "those in power" who seek to "squash" their "movement" or ideas, and the most radical tend to encompass the realms holding the highest concentrations of conspiracy theorists.

Trust me, this little political science lecture really does have a point; before I get there, though, let me indulge in pointing out where I think things have gone horribly wrong.



WHERE'S THE FOCUS: THE PEOPLE OR "STICKING IT TO THE MAN"?

I have listened carefully to the arguments presented by well-respected leaders within the Progressive Movement who argued strenuously against passing the new health insurance reform bill. I have read the links, the articles, the interviews, and pros and cons. Many of the arguments are very impressive and quite detailed, some tend towards the passionate and away from the factual. But none of it is convincing me that some of the folks on the Left who opposed passing this bill give more than lip-service empathy about what's going to actually happen to PEOPLE.

Here's why:

Every argument I've heard from the Left's "kill the bill" folks is that this is a huge giveaway to insurance and Big Pharma. That Congress-Critters will be filling their pockets and glad-handing themselves over how they got away with another big handout to the corporations. That anything that does anything good for people is only going to empower the corporations more.

Strangely, I hear very little, and nearly nothing specific, about the good things that will happen for real people when the bill's provisions take effect. If anything, even many of the good things are twisted around to actually seem bad... a "sop for the masses", "doesn't go far enough", or even that they will backfire and actually turn into a monstrous hundred-headed hydra upon the American people.

In fact, I hardly hear a peep about the affect the bill will have on your average, normal citizen. Some breast-beating about premium costs going up (which is not necessarily accurate, more of a wait-and-see issue) and that individuals won't get the benefits of ending pre-existing conditions and recissions for many years (largely true, except for certain groups like children). Overall, I have heard lots and lots about corporate giveaways and the power of corporations: little about people.

So I've studied this issue over the last few weeks as the final versions of the bill got hammered out and we got closer to passage, and I have seen this recurring theme:

"It lines the pockets of the powerful and political, therefore it is bad. That's all you need to know; what else is important?"

In some extremes, I've even had it more plainly spelled out: "We've got to HURT these soulless, heartless corporations. They're evil incarnate. We must damage them utterly. Down with the corporate overlords!"

It has seemed to me, from all of the rhetoric on the Left's "kill the bill" side, that they are far more concerned with making an example of corporations than actually helping people. It comes across as a 21st Century version of the hippie era's "sticking it to the man"... making a political point for ideological reasons is more important than anything else (including making any kind of actual progress).

And that's just as heartless, just as soulless, just as evil as the corporations supposedly are being. It is holding an entire nation of people in dire need hostage to a political ideology... for no other reason than to prove a point.

WHEN PROGRESSIVES BECOME RADICAL LEFTISTS

I was in conversation concerning the recent health insurance reform bill with a friend who eagerly and angrily denounced people like Dennis Kucinich, Anthony Weiner, Alan Grayson, Michael Moore, Dr. Howard Dean, and others as "corporatists" "sell-outs" and "back-stabbing charlatans". These leaders, who had been on the front lines for single-payer healthcare, who had reluctantly agreed that a public option compromise would be better than nothing, and finally in the end supported the final bills because they at least provided a stepping stone towards future changes that probably wouldn't come again for a generation, were, in my friend's opinion, "no better than Republicans" and had "caved".

When someone tells you that everyone who formerly fought for their cause but now has decided to accept compromises that move us forward is a sell-out or traitor, you are hearing the words of an "extreme radical". On the Left, it is most certainly NOT the mark of a liberal/progressive. Why? Because both liberals and progressives know when to keep fighting even against all odds, and when to make peace and accept the ground they've won. That is, by definition, what "progressive" means. "Extreme radicals", on the other hand, will continue the battle to the last person standing, set fire to any form of truce or peace treaty, and send any fellow warrior who even suggests accepting a reduced form of the prize to the firing squad.

It should also be noted that those who slip from either the far-left or the far-right into the "extreme radical" category join a very small and very exclusionary club, which only serves to drive away anyone else who is more readily accepting of compromise and mutual agreement between rivals.

Which makes it really odd to hear these folks who are either headed in that direction or already there call themselves "Progressives". They're not. They are the left-wing version of the Tea Party. Progressives, as the term would suggest, seek progress, and are willing to achieve it over time, not demand it all now, all at once, exactly as prescribed, or no deal.

I am a progressive. I believe in making progress, not making political "points" that achieve nothing. I believe it takes time, effort, and perseverance to do so. I believe it takes convincing people, not shouting them down, and that to do so requires a willingness to accept that even if they hold opposing views, it doesn't necessarily make them wrong, it means I need to educate them. I believe it requires patience, and an real understanding of history and the political process (both of which are a lot messier and more complicated than most of us understand).

If you believe that it is unthinkable to accept compromise and be willing to accept that we may have to take this step-by-step over many years; if you believe that passing no HCR bill was preferable to passing a flawed bill even though it helps 32 million people and ends some of the worst practices of our current health-scare system; if you believe that anyone who disagrees with you is a sell-out or at best a mindless automaton of the corporate state; if you believe these things, then you are NOT a Progressive, you are an extreme left-wing radical.

If you believe these things, then you are in the margins of society, you have given up your right to be taken seriously along with your willingness to compromise, and you will never see those things happen in this country that you and we so strongly desire. We will never achieve these things, because by continuing to identify yourselves as "Progressives" when in truth you are not willing to accept "progress" but only "All Or Nothing", you are Fifth Columnists within the Progressive Movement; you are using your small numbers and remaining influence to disrupt, damage, or kill the efforts of those less rigid than yourselves, hurting us all as a nation and a people by trying to blend your more radical message along with ours.

You have forgotten that political change is about helping REAL PEOPLE, not a CAUSE.

So please either stop the radicalization, or stop pretending you're Progressives. We'd prefer the former, so that we can work together on meeting the enormous challenges we all face today; but if not, then get out of our way and quit sabotaging our efforts to improve the lives of millions of people in America.

Globalization (And Our Children's Future) Demands That We Restructure the Military

The United States military budget, just taking into account figures going back to 2002 (before the Iraq War), made up 45% of the entire WORLD'S military expenditures. Represented in cartographic form (mapped according to the proportion of military spending per nation) our world looks something like this:


© Copyright 2009 SASI Group (University of Sheffield)

In other words, our taxes (which conservatives are always so keen on lowering) largely go towards supporting nearly one-half of all the money spent worldwide on military expenditures (and with the Iraq War figures not being accounted for in this, perhaps much more). A good deal of this is spent on stuff that simply gets destroyed (and a good deal of that is NOT destroyed in acts of war, but in training exercises).

A huge portion of that money goes to supporting around 4700 military bases and installations both domestically and on foreign soil (see page 11 of the PDF in the link... and that was just 2004, prior to huge budget increases, and does not include secret sites).

Combine that last with the fact that the reasoning for keeping most of these military bases, as well as the hardware and personnel required to keep them operational, are based on projecting power for a now non-existent Cold War; some are even running on inertia left over from WWII.

So three questions based on the following postulate: if America makes up 4.5% of the world's population, occupies 2% of the world's landmass, is running neck and neck with China and the EU as one of the world's premier economic powers, and is still the undisputed superpower in military technology and delivery capabilities, then:

1. WHY DO WE NEED EVEN 10% OF THE BASES OUT THERE? Can't America "project its power" with 80 foreign bases, if we represent such a military superiority while at the same time having such a small population and proportion of land? We have already demonstrated that we can move personnel and hardware around the world in a matter of hours using only a handful of major bases; what is the purpose for the rest of them?

2. WHY DO AMERICANS FEEL THE NEED TO BE THE "WORLD'S POLICEMAN"? This did not exist until Pearl Harbor, except in our own "back yard" with Central and South America vis–à–vis the Monroe Doctrine. Could it be that we are so anxious and afraid of being attacked again (as in Pearl, and as in 9/11) that we feel the need to be the biggest, toughest “bully on the playground”, or is there something less archetypal and more rational about it? Could it instead be something as simple as a desire to protect our markets by planting military bases right on top of strategic resources?

3. IF CHINA AND THE EU ARE RAPIDLY EQUALING OR EXCEEDING OUR ECONOMIC POWER, SHOULDN'T WE LET THEM SHOULDER MORE OF THE BURDEN OF PROVIDING MILITARY SUPPORT IN TROUBLED REGIONS OF THE WORLD? If we accept the obvious (though morally dubious) fact that a semi-capitalistic country such as ours uses its military to protect its markets, but we are now a global marketplace as the "Friedman Flat-Earthers" like to promote, then would it not make sense for every nation with a stake in globalization also do their part to provide security for trouble spots around the globe?

The next time you have a conversation with a conservative who thinks globalization is a wonderful thing and advocates a strong military, and who blanches at the thought of cutting military spending (while touting our need to cut social programs as "unsustainable"), perhaps you could ask them to answer these three questions. While I am sure there are some rational arguments they could present to support our present military budget, I have a feeling that most other arguments will simply devolve into circular logic.

In my view, since we have dramatically reduced the chances of worldwide nuclear annihilation with the end of the Cold War over 20 years ago, and the chances of an old-style "invasion" of our country are virtually nil, then our military is no longer primarily protecting American SOIL: they are protecting the American ECONOMY. While this fundamental shift in our military's purpose is important in many ways, it came without a fundamental shift in overall mentality from the top to the bottom. We have a military that is still structured as though we are going to, any day now, fight yesterday's war. And that leaves it enormously bloated.

Now think about the logic of this huge military budget that is now primarily tasked with protecting our economic well-being around the world: we are spending trillions of dollars over many decades to protect our ability to generate trillions of dollars in a global economy that we ourselves created.

Isn't that kind of like hiring a full security team costing $50,000 per month to protect your corner store that produces $100,000 per month, when you could do just as well with an electronic security system (cameras, alarms, etc.) that has a one-time cost of $10,000 and perhaps one security guard costing $3,000 per month? Imagine what your store could do with that extra money. Why, you might think of investing it in growing your business!

Imagine what we could do in our own country and around the world if we restructured our military to meet the needs of the present and future instead of the past. What would you do differently in America with, say, an extra $300-$500 billion per year? Universal healthcare? Fully-funded education through college? Pay off the national debt and re-invest that interest money into domestic needs? Invest in infrastructure improvements and sustainable transportation? Pour money into researching ways to wean ourselves off of foreign oil and gas? Colonize the Moon and Mars and leave the cradle of Earth before an asteroid comes and wipes us all out?

Imagine a future where the greatest desires of both liberals and conservatives are met: a future in which our grandchildren are not paying off a huge debt burden left behind by previous generations, are able to drink safe and clean water and food, where taxes are lower but are still able to fund great social programs to meet the needs of the people, and peace in the world is possible because America is no longer seen as the "bully on the playground" but is instead a co-partner with the rest of the world. It won't be Utopia, and there will still be vast areas of improvement necessary in areas like income inequality and poverty, cleaning up the mess left from advancing climate change, and much more. But at least for America, NONE of this will be possible unless we cut back on spending.

And we have a choice: do we cut back on already-inadequate social safety nets upon which millions depend, or do we cut back on a bloated, inefficient, and antiquated military superstructure and redesign it for our modern age? And why do I even have to ask this question?