Mar. 22nd, 2012

Inequality

Mar. 22nd, 2012 10:00 am
monk222: (Default)
A fair point in our debate on inequality.

_ _ _

There’s much empirical evidence suggesting that Americans are prepared to accept even substantial inequality as long as it’s generated under competitive market rules. It’s therefore wrong to interpret public outrage about CEO pay as a protest against high compensation in and of itself. This outrage is not driven by the class envy about which the GOP presidential candidates so frequently complain. It is, rather, a protest against rationing, corruption, sweetheart deals, and foxes guarding the henhouse. It is a protest, in other words, against the corruption of markets by power.

-- David B. Grusky

_ _ _

No doubt we will not be leaving capitalism. So, yeah, let us at least try to keep the big players somewhat honest, if it is not already too late and impossible. But, still, in the interest of maintaining some level of fairness, you do have to accept some redistribution, if only to build up the infrastructure along with maintaining decent health care and education. Some of that obscene private wealth really needs to serve the public good.

Inequality

Mar. 22nd, 2012 10:00 am
monk222: (Default)
A fair point in our debate on inequality.

_ _ _

There’s much empirical evidence suggesting that Americans are prepared to accept even substantial inequality as long as it’s generated under competitive market rules. It’s therefore wrong to interpret public outrage about CEO pay as a protest against high compensation in and of itself. This outrage is not driven by the class envy about which the GOP presidential candidates so frequently complain. It is, rather, a protest against rationing, corruption, sweetheart deals, and foxes guarding the henhouse. It is a protest, in other words, against the corruption of markets by power.

-- David B. Grusky

_ _ _

No doubt we will not be leaving capitalism. So, yeah, let us at least try to keep the big players somewhat honest, if it is not already too late and impossible. But, still, in the interest of maintaining some level of fairness, you do have to accept some redistribution, if only to build up the infrastructure along with maintaining decent health care and education. Some of that obscene private wealth really needs to serve the public good.
monk222: (Noir Detective)
I don’t want to live in a country where no one ever says anything that offends anyone. That’s why we have Canada. That’s not us.

-- Bill Maher at The New York Times

A couple of weeks ago or so Rush Limbaugh finally got in big trouble - 'the sponsors and money leaving his show' kind of trouble - calling a female law student, standing up for the right to have contraceptives as part of one's healthcare coverage, a slut. Bill Maher, interestingly, stood up against the uproar in defense of free speech. Of course, Maher knows well what it is to suffer from this kind of backlash. He lost his network TV show, if I recall correctly, when he said that the 9/11 attackers were not cowards, whatever else they may be.

I have to say, I rather favor free speech myself. Which is not to say that any right is absolute. We probably should not countenance the advocacy of violence, nor perhaps strong hate speech. We will always have the problem of line-drawing, but we are arguably drawing the lines a little too constrictively when it comes to speech these days.
monk222: (Noir Detective)
I don’t want to live in a country where no one ever says anything that offends anyone. That’s why we have Canada. That’s not us.

-- Bill Maher at The New York Times

A couple of weeks ago or so Rush Limbaugh finally got in big trouble - 'the sponsors and money leaving his show' kind of trouble - calling a female law student, standing up for the right to have contraceptives as part of one's healthcare coverage, a slut. Bill Maher, interestingly, stood up against the uproar in defense of free speech. Of course, Maher knows well what it is to suffer from this kind of backlash. He lost his network TV show, if I recall correctly, when he said that the 9/11 attackers were not cowards, whatever else they may be.

I have to say, I rather favor free speech myself. Which is not to say that any right is absolute. We probably should not countenance the advocacy of violence, nor perhaps strong hate speech. We will always have the problem of line-drawing, but we are arguably drawing the lines a little too constrictively when it comes to speech these days.
monk222: (Strip)
It looks like Orwell's "1984" might be getting a new movie adaptation. They are in the very early stages, though, so everything may fall through. It was not long ago when there was a lot of buzz about Milton's "Paradise Lost" being made into a movie, and that project recently fell apart.

Personally, I like the last movie with John Hurt and Richard Burton and that hot chick, but I can easily imagine a better version, so that I feel expectant about a new movie. However, I am afraid that they will only do something hip and cool for the youngsters - think of the re-make of "Rollerball". But I am always willing to hold out hope for something more artful, something that really draws you in and holds you in awe.

I would hope that they also keep all the nudity that helped to set the last movie off. Nothing like a little girlie bush to keep the men awake and interested, especially Monk. However, I would bet they won't. Why lose audience with an R-rating, when you can skip the nudity and let the kiddies in the theater? Of course, if they do a fantastic, beautiful job on the movie, I won't mind losing the nudity, though I really do appreciate a little artfulness in my cinema.

In all seriousness, the story needs the sensuality and sexual passion, as it is a bleak story set in a grim world. We need a little fire of life and hope at its core, even as we know that that fire will be snuffed out at the end.


(Source: ONTD)
monk222: (Strip)
It looks like Orwell's "1984" might be getting a new movie adaptation. They are in the very early stages, though, so everything may fall through. It was not long ago when there was a lot of buzz about Milton's "Paradise Lost" being made into a movie, and that project recently fell apart.

Personally, I like the last movie with John Hurt and Richard Burton and that hot chick, but I can easily imagine a better version, so that I feel expectant about a new movie. However, I am afraid that they will only do something hip and cool for the youngsters - think of the re-make of "Rollerball". But I am always willing to hold out hope for something more artful, something that really draws you in and holds you in awe.

I would hope that they also keep all the nudity that helped to set the last movie off. Nothing like a little girlie bush to keep the men awake and interested, especially Monk. However, I would bet they won't. Why lose audience with an R-rating, when you can skip the nudity and let the kiddies in the theater? Of course, if they do a fantastic, beautiful job on the movie, I won't mind losing the nudity, though I really do appreciate a little artfulness in my cinema.

In all seriousness, the story needs the sensuality and sexual passion, as it is a bleak story set in a grim world. We need a little fire of life and hope at its core, even as we know that that fire will be snuffed out at the end.


(Source: ONTD)

Profile

monk222: (Default)
monk222

May 2019

S M T W T F S
    1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031 

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Dec. 24th, 2025 04:19 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios