The American way

Condoleeza Rice has a new book out.

"Democracy" it's called.

Not sure if I'll get around to reading the book, but I did read Walter Russell Mead's review.

Mead forgot to mention that the Chevron oil multinational once named an oil tanker after her. Quite an honour for the future Sec of State, and a glaring omission on Mead's part. That oil tanker speaks to who's interests Condi represents.  Mead's failure to mention it tells me he's kowtowing to the same interests.

Anyway, that quibble aside, Mead seems confident that American exceptionalism will carry the day, in spite of this temporary shadow cast by the short-fingered vulgarian currently occupying the White House.

That expression, by the way, was originally coined as a put-down of certain merchants, the ones who were apt to short-change you. The vulgarian part came later. It wasn't until Trump Rage hit terminal velocity that the expression was sexualized.

But I digress. Condi continues to be amply rewarded for her service to Empire, and she was all-in for Trump's choice of Rexxon Tillerson to take her old job.


My sister just came back from a brief family visit to LA. She was shocked to see block after block of homeless folks living in tents on the sidewalks.

Don't sweat it, dear sister; that's how they roll in the richest nation on the planet. There may be more homeless on the sidewalks and under bridges, but take heart... there are more billionaires in cabinet than ever before!


Drove by a Costco the other day. You can save big when you buy in bulk. Costco's days at the top of the retail pile are probably numbered. From Kresge to Walton to Bezos, great fortunes have been made in figuring out how to get more people to buy more shit that, as often as not, they don't really need.

The emerging Bezos model of retail will kill Costco. The only thing better than buying in bulk is having a drone deliver that bulk right to your apartment balcony.

There was a time when having enough made us fat and happy.

Now we've got more than we can ever use, but we're obese and depressed.


The exceptional nation is waiting for Donald Trump to make it great again.

Multi-culti crowd exchanges fisticuffs in multi-culti capital of Canada - over parking space

I've only been to Costco once or twice in my life, and as a "guest," not as a member. Like what the hell is that, some sort of cult of consumerism?

Anyway, you'd think all those cult members would share some basic values, beyond knowing how to fill a shopping cart with crap they don't need, at the best price. But apparently those shared values don't extend to passing up the very last parking slot in a thousand acre parking lot.

At some level I think this is also a good case in support of gun control. If any of those folks had been packing when the red descended on them, somebody'd be dead!

Then again, knowing the other guy probably has a Glock in the glovebox might incline one to shut-up and just look for another parking space.

The Resurrection of Captain Ludd

The local high school has about 800 cellphone-carrying students. Assuming that they, or more likely their parents, are paying an average of fifty bucks a month for cell service, that's $40,000 every month floating out of that building into the coffers of the cellphone industry.

Twenty years ago no students at that school had cellphones. That's a school that can't afford new helmets for the football team and has multiple fund-raisers to keep alive its breakfast program which costs somewhat less than $500 a month to operate. But $40,000 every month just wafts up through the ceiling tiles.

This is the result of a completely irrational fetishization of technology. What are these kids actually doing with these cellphones? Are they necessary?

Ask the kids and they'll answer that they can't imagine living without one.

As a society we seem to blindly accept that just because someone has come up with a technology, we are obliged to adopt, adapt, consume, and enrich the providers of that technology. Asking "how is this making the world a better place" would mark you as a senile sentimentalist.

But while it's true that the billions worldwide who have adopted this technology have made an infinitesimally small clique of individuals exceedingly wealthy, how has it improved society?

This goes well beyond cellphones. Usually, new technology will promise enhanced efficiencies in the bouquet of propaganda that heralds its debut.

As a society, we're over-the-top about "efficiency."

Efficiency-seeking investment dollars chased manufacturing from the US and Canada to Mexico and then China, and then on to Cambodia and Bangladesh and Haiti, in a constant quest for greater efficiency.

The never-ending search for cheaper inputs on the one hand, and the constant evolution of technology on the other, have conspired to make North America and much of the "developed world" into a job-shedding wasteland.

If we believe that "jobs" are a valuable commodity in a society, perhaps we should manage ourselves accordingly.

When hedge fund driven mergers, rationalizations, take-overs etc. result in the inevitable "synergies,"  i.e. drastic lay-offs, there needs to be a place in the discussion about how this benefits society at large. If the only beneficiaries are the hedge-fund operators and their investors, then the only point would be to further enrich the already rich at the expense of a wide swath of ordinary folks.

Why should that be permitted?

The creation and preservation of decent jobs is a worthwhile end in itself. The elimination of such jobs is not.

And what is a "decent" job?

A lot of low-wage employment is not inherently unpleasant. I served a spell in retail myself once. Putting in an eight hour shift at the mall could be eminently agreeable to a lot of people if the pay allowed them to live a proper life.

That's why the movement in the US by fast food and retail workers to up the minimum wage to $15 is such a positive development. If Costco can pay a decent wage, Wal-mart and McDonalds can too.

Even more important, we can't as a society embrace every new "labour-saving technology" without giving some thought to what will happen to the labour that's going to be saved. When we talk about saving labour we are talking about eliminating somebody's livelihood. Shouldn't they have a say in the matter?

For far too long the discussion about workers and jobs has been monopolized by the Chamber of Commerce types who champion profit maximization over employees, communities, society, the environment, and every other manifestation of the common good.

It's time to reboot the discussion.