Killing the Economy

Earlier this year, I explained to the General Manager of a Toyota dealership how very pleased, in fact, overjoyed, I have been with a Toyota Tercel I bought from his dealership 13 years ago, on May 6, 1995. He was aghast. He exclaimed, "Don't you need a new car? You're just killing the economy driving that old thing!"

When I bought my little tank of a car, I never expected to keep it this long. My goal was ten years. But, when ten years arrived, I still loved the car. This was in 2005, before the gas crises of the last few years, and my favorite thing about it was the gas mileage it gets. Rated at 28 city and 32 highway when I bought it, the car actually gets an average of 42 miles per gallon, and always has since I drove it home. (It's a stick shift.)

Plus, I couldn't afford a new car 10 years into my investment. At that point, it had over 200,000 miles on it, and was still running strong. At least, that was, until I forgot to put oil in it for a few weeks.

When I killed the engine by letting it go too long without oil, I put a refurbished engine in it that had only 50,000 miles rather than buying a new car. The car has been running strong, and now has over 300,000 miles on it, with the original transmission.

Granted, I never planned to have my car this long. My original plan, like that of many Americans, was to keep it a few years, and then trade it in for a newer, sleeker model that better fit my income (which, of course, was only rising at the time). But, life intervened, and ten years passed quickly, And now that it's made it 13--a totally unexpected number of years--I plan to get at least another two years out of it, especially with the economy like it is now.

The General Manager of the dealership where I bought the car was so disgusted with me because by keeping this car, I have gone against the American grain: I haven't replaced it with a newer model or spent money on something different, and thus, I have been killing the economy.

If only he knew I've walked into a mall fewer times than I can count on one hand in the last five years, or that I haven't bought an RV, boat, motorcycle, or other vehicle ever. He'd probably keel over.

The American mentality is that we have to be constantly consuming to keep the economy strong. If we are spending money, we are creating jobs.

But, this practice is seductively deceptive. In fact, I think it's overconsumption, not underconsumption, that has gotten us where we are today.

Consider this: the housing crisis is supposedly a result of the sub prime market going belly-up. What are sub prime loans? Loans given to people who didn't have sufficient credit to buy a home with their existing credit. Who pushed these loans? The U.S. federal government. Why? One idea was that people who have homes will be able to participate more in the economy.

They would have the stability of their own place, and could then work and consume, and participate in the greater economy. Obviously, that strategy didn't work. Non-credit worthy people are not good risks specifically because they consume beyond their means.

As this bubble was growing, and before it burst, I knew many folks who got themselves into mortgages they could not really afford because of lower interest loans and creative financing. Fueled by over-exorbitant salaries, they bought cars, RV's, boats, motorcycles, paid for grandiose trips, and ate out virtually every night at expensive restaurants. What they couldn't pay cash for, they charged, always buying the latest gadgets and keeping up with the Joneses.

All of the people who participated in this system definitely consumed things. They spent and spent and spent. And, the economy grew. But, it grew well beyond its means. Jobs were created, but many of those jobs were surplus jobs that were not essential to business or manufacturing enterprise. Tons of my friends have worked at jobs that previously did not exist because they were "fat" on the bone of the business enterprise.

As these folks consumed, they wanted more and more things. We live in a society where we can buy virtually ANYTHING: from food to furniture to picnic sets to fake plastic wishbones so that everyone at the Thanksgiving table can snap a bone for good luck. Being that everything is readily available, folks just bought and bought and bought.

And, again, more jobs were created. Smart American business people started their own firms, and using cheap labor, farmed out their manufacturing to other countries where things could be provided to the consumer at cheaper and cheaper prices. As prices went down, buying went up.

American companies acted like consumers themselves: bloating up with more and more employees, paying out fat bonuses to all the top executives, and spending down all their reserves, buying up sister companies, competitors, expanding into larger and larger markets.

The problem is that unfettered spending can't last forever. At some point, you have to actually pay the piper. Americans began to realize their number was up when oil prices skyrocketed during the last year.

The oil crunch put a crunch on everyone's spending. Companies, now no longer able to supply products at the prices they had been, began to raise costs. Consumers bought less, and companies, to cut costs, began eliminating jobs. The service industries which piggybacked our manufacturing houses were then hit as well, and they began laying off folks, too. People who lost their jobs sadly could not make ends meet, and began losing houses, cars, and declaring bankruptcy.

Ultimately, the problem was one we chose: we chose to live beyond our means. We chose to live unsustainable lifestyles. We chose to spend more than we had. Now we are paying. It seems to me (in my own narcissistic mind) that my conservatism is NOT what is killing the economy. What has killed the economy is the very opposite: overspending, living beyond one's means, and unsustainable lifestyles.

Here's hoping that as we enter the new year other folks will think twice before buying a new car every two years. Here's hoping that everyone else will consider saving money, and here's hoping that all of America will opt for sustainable lifestyles.

If we all cut back and choose sustainability, we may be able to salvage our economy before we really go broke.

Wasting Water

When I turned on the water faucet to wash my hands before making dinner the other night, I was shocked at how cold the water was flowing from the tap. It was, of course, freezing outside...

American that I am, I do not have a tankless water heater, so I waited approximately 45 seconds for the water to warm up to an acceptable temperature so that I could bear getting my hands clean.

Which, naturally, got me to thinking: just how much time in my life have I spent waiting for tap water to warm up?

More importantly, how many hours of electricity, how many gallons of natural gas, and how many pounds of coal have I wasted waiting for the water to get warm, not only at my house, but at friends' houses, in hotels and motels, and when visiting family members?

It may not seem like a significant thing, my waiting for the water, but multiply that by the millions of Americans who let the tap run, and the loss of resources is enormous.

And, it's not just people waiting for the water heater to kick in. It's all the folks who just let the water run while they brush their teeth, soap their hands, or wash dishes.

How can we be so flip about such an important resource? How can we let gallons and gallons of water run back down the drain each day without using them at all?

Although I do not believe the human impact on the environment is as grave as all of the Chicken Littles out there crying about global climate change, I've lately begun to realize that wasting natural resources is an issue of national security.

Consider this: every minute that we let the water run, we waste precious electricity. This electricity, is, in many places in the country, generated by coal, natural gas, and other fossil fuels. So, each precious second wastes more and more energy, causing us to be more and more dependent on foreign sources of oil, gas, and other natural resources, as well as to waste our own precious resources. Each second we all wait for water to heat up wastes our own resources as well as increases our national fossil fuel debt, enslaving us to OPEC and other oil producing nations.

And, it's not just water that we waste so readily. How about lighting? The number of lights we leave on for no reason is staggering. Consider the thousands and thousands of city blocks' worth of lights that are left on every night after all of the workers have exited an office building. Or, the shop lights that light empty stores, closed for business. Or, the lights left on so someone can see when he or she gets home. Why aren't we using more motion sensors?

More importantly, and completely contrary to my more libertarian minded beliefs, why don't local governments require all office buildings to be equipped with lights controlled by motion-detection sensors, so that empty rooms are left in the dark? The various governments have certainly seen fit to regulate so many other areas of our lives, why leave this important area open?

Or, how about incandescent lighting? Why hasn't government regulation eliminated it except in necessary applications, replacing it wherever possible with compact florescent bulbs? A recent Frontline special indicates this change alone could save the coal from more than 20 electrical plants.

And, why don't we all start carrying fabric bags to the grocery store, and stop getting plastic bags? How many plastic bags are wasted every year, with all that petroleum thrown in the landfill?

Or, food production, why don't we eliminate our dependence on corn, and stop wasting 10 calories of fossil fuels to create 1 calorie of food?

If we just got creative, we could all cut down our coal and oil consumption to a point where we would not be raping our own lands for more resources, and the oil producing nations wouldn't be holding our country captive. And, we could move forward into a new world where we were all certain that our natural resources would remain intact for future generations.

What's So Wrong with the Mostly Made-Up Memoir?

OK, one thing you probably notice about this blog is that it doesn't cover all of the latest trends. Let's face it: I'm slow.

Sure, I keep up with current events and listen to the news, but I take a long time to process information and then write about it. That, of course, is very un-blog-like, since blogs only survive if you are talking about up-to-the-minute stuff that is all the buzz on tv, radio, and internet. Well, trends be damned. In today's post, I want to talk about something that has been on my mind for over a year: mostly made-up memoirs.

The last time an author scandalized the world with a mostly made-up memoir was this past spring. The scandal centered around Margaret B. Jones' Love and Consequences, a memoir of growing up half-native American and half-white in the gangland of South Central Los Angeles. This alleged memoir recounted Ms. Jones' life running drugs for a gang in which her two black foster brothers were members.

Turns out nothing about this memoir was true, not even Ms. Jones' name. In fact, Ms. Jones is actually Peggy Seltzer, who grew up in a privileged family in North Hollywood. After three years of working on the book, Ms. Seltzer's secret was finally revealed, and her publisher pulled all copies of it from store shevles before anyone could be duped into believing it was not for real.

When confronted with the reality of her lies, Ms. Seltzer explained that many of the stories in the memoir were true, they just weren't her stories: she borrowed each and every one of them from friends who had worked as mentors and teachers to real gang members.

Ms. Seltzer's mostly made-up memoir was preceeded by two other famous pretenders: Misha: A Memoir of the Holocaust Years by Misha Defonseca and A Million Little Pieces by James Frey. Mr. Frey, of course, gets the award for the most convincing mostly made-up memoir, because he suckered everyone in the world, including Oprah, into believing his completely fabricated tale of love and redemption at a drug rehabilitation facility.

Not having had the chance to actually read Ms. Seltzer's book before it was yanked from the shelves, and not having yet read the Defonseca Holocaust memoir, I can't comment on those books, but I can comment on Frey's book, which I read not too long ago.

Frey's book is fantastically tedious if you know it is fiction. The grueling details of Frey's oral surgery without painkillers; the sappy story of his love interest and their trysts at the rehabilitation center; and the eventual suicide of his gal all have the drama of a flat B-grade film.

If, however, you believe the memoir is, in fact, fact, the book transcends this tedium to become a testament to the human spirit and its ability to triumph after falling into the absolute depths of inhumanity. Personally, I'd rather believe the book is true because knowing that it is false made it such a boring read.

Interestingly, these mostly made-up memoirs are not new. A recent episode of The History Detectives investigated the origins of an 1856 book titled Female Life Among the Mormons, which purported to be a real tale of a woman forced into polygamy by her husband, who joined the early Mormon church. Not to ruin the episode for you, but our fearless detectives ultimately discover the book is a complete fabrication, possibly written by an author from the East Coast. The client requesting the investigation was so disappointed to hear the memoir was not real because she enjoyed the seemingly realistic portrayals of early Mormon life so much that she didn't want to believe the book was made-up.

That leads me to the question of the day, what's so wrong with these mostly made-up memoirs? If they are better when you believe they are real, who really cares if they are fabricated? I, for one, do not care.

Think about it: what autobiography can honestly be relied upon to be completely and perfectly factual and accurate? Each and every autobiography you read, whether it's Ben Frankin's or Katherine Hepburn's or Barack Obama's, is tainted by the author's personal perspective about him or herself. No one can be truly honest and accurate about his or her own personal experience. So, autobiography is a flawed medium.

Moreover, no one gets indignant if a celebrity takes liberties and exaggerates aspects of his or her life when they sit down to pen their memories. In fact, a little stretching of the truth is somewhat expected when celebrities write their tell-all tales.

Honestly, is anyone really expecting a memoir to have the scientific accuracy of a well-researched biography? Are readers sitting at home researching each and every fact in the biographies and autobiographies they read to make sure all of the stories recounted are absolutely, 100% true? I doubt it.

People want the essence of the life described, not necessarily the agonizing detail of exactness. Readers want to escape in the losses, failures, and triumphs of the person who has lived the interesting life. If that life turns out to be borrowed completely from another person, what harm? These mostly made-up memoirs don't seem any more damaging than historical fiction or non-fiction novels. And, it seems we should actually give kudos to any author who can completely create a life that is so interesting everyone believes it is real, rather than fiction.

The Incredible Journey: A Musical

The last post about the repetitive radio format got me to thinking a lot about those overplayed artists. So, in contradiction to my complaining about old and tired artists, I wanted to take a few minutes to consider the musical (you know, like South Pacific) possibilities of one of classic rocks denizens: Journey.

Journey is one of those groups I've never been able to take seriously. For years, Journey ignited in my mind images of unicorns, bad wings hair-dos, and New Jersey--all of which always seemed so mediocre and tacky, kind of like a velvet Elvis. The last few years, though, have given me a greater appreciation for Journey.

That Steve Perry could really sing. He could belt out some incrediblly emotive and theatrical odes. In fact, in the "Sherry" video, he toyed with the idea of an operatic presentation of his dramatic lyrics by presenting the protagonist and the love he chased in a backstage drama of unrequited love.

Although Perry has long since left the group, it seems a shame his songs could not find their true venue: the opera or a musical. Can you imagine an opera or musical based solely on the Journey repertoire? What could be better?

Opera itself is a banal medium--filled with sappy love stories and melodrama. If you actually understand Italian and German, you learn pretty quickly that opera songs are about as bubblegum-y as any Leslie Gore or Frankie Valli song. But, when wrapped up in the amazing voices that sing opera, it becomes one of the higher of the high-brow art forms.

Musicals, on the other hand, make no bones about their banality. In plain English, they recount their characters' experience of the basic human emotions--love, anger, grief, happiness, and sadness--in mundane little ditties that rhyme at every line. Yet, they do it with a flair that envelopes the audience in every angonizingly pedestrian feeling they express through song.

Journey's songs seem perfectly suited to both of these mediums. The opera or musical could be the incredible love journey of a young working class couple: beginning with their meeting on "a midnight train going anywhere." It could follow them through the blissful period of falling in love that immediately ensues where they learn "what good love can do."

This short period of joy would, of course, be followed by the realities these two working class heroes face: work, mindnumbing work, the male having to leave the home to provide, the gal staying home waiting for her love. That "wheel in the sky" would "keep on turning" while they wade through the harsh and cold reality of life together.

As our heroes learn that "the road ain't no place to start a family," guy and gal float apart. The "girl can't help it," and she's not alone. Both of them will need more, because they haven't found what they are looking for.

They will disintegrate, and an acrimony as stong as vinegar will develop between them and build the tension in the opera to world shattering sadness. They will tear each other apart with their "lovin', touchin', squeezin'" on others.

And, finally, they will meet again in their "city by the bay" and reconcile their differences, coming together to the satisfaction of the audience, now fully at the edge of its seat, beneath a halo of light in the night by the railroad tracks where they first set eyes on each other. The opera, naturally, will end with a reprise of "Faithfully," as the cast comes out for curtain call.

This is a perfect opera, filled with anguished emotion, sympathetic characters that live out everyman and everywoman's life on stage, and dramatic backdrops that highlight the emotions of the songs. Now, we just need to find someone with that Steve Perry pipe organ of a voice to take the lead...

I Can't Stand, I Can't Stand, I Can't Stand Listening to the Police Anymore

The Police are great musicians, don't get me wrong. They have an amazing catalog of hits. Their songs are enduring, and have stood the test of time.

But, that doesn't change the fact that I'm sick to death of hearing them. Since they hit the scene in the late 1970s, their songs have been played incessantly on the radio, as if they are brand new.

The Police are not the only band or artist to receive such ad nauseum play on American radio. Consider the Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, Madonna, John Cougar Mellencamp, and Tom Petty. On any given day in America, you can hear "Beast of Burden," followed by "Stairway to Heaven," "Jack and Diane," "Free Falling," and "Get into the Groove" repeatedly on regular airplay. Not long ago, on a road trip from Georgia to Oklahoma, I counted the number of times I heard "Beast of Burden" on different radio stations across the country in one day: no less than 16 on 12 different stations.

Yet, on regular airplay you CAN'T hear the likes of Of Montreal, Stereolab, Modern Skirts, or Mogwai or The Ravonettes. And, all of these musicians have released albums or toured in the past year. The only way to hear them on regular airwaves is to listen to a college station, or if you are lucky, an alternative station like Athens Alternative, WPPP.

James Miller explains in his book _Flowers in the Dustbin_ that repetitive radio programming began in the 1950s when a well-known radio producer noticed an unusual phenomenon at his local diner. All day customers spent their dimes playing the same couple of songs on the jukebox. At the end of the day, the waitresses who had been kept captive in the diner, hearing the same songs again and again would go to the jukebox and spend their dimes not on something new, but on the same few songs! When the producer adapted this idea to his radio station, it created instant success.

Today, the repetitive format continues. Only, it seems that new radio programming died sometime in the mid-1980s, and we've all been stuck listening to the same 25 or so songs since then. And, it's amazing that the same _songs_ are played over and over: The Rolling Stones' catalog, for instance, includes many more songs than "Beast of Burden" and "(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction." Why does regular radio hold us captive to these haggard old songs? Surely Americans, who are used to having every possible choice available to them, prefer to have more options than these.

Are the corporations who run these stations so conservative and shortsighted in their formatting that they can't deviate from their age-old programming? Or, is the consumer so boring that he or she can't learn to like new music, forcing the radio corporations to just keep playing the same old schlock? Or, is there something else I'm missing?

It seems that more and more people are leaving regular radio behind. There are more choices on satellite radio, and why bother with radio at all if you have an iPod? Maybe it's not radio: maybe it's me. Maybe this 13th gen gal just needs to move onto a new medium, since I can't stand, I can't stand, I can't stand listening to The Police anymore.

The Importance of Heller

The Importance of Heller

The New York Times has already stated that the decision announced yesterday by the United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller will have "little practical impact in most of the country." (See After Ruling, Expect Court Fights on Guns in Cities.) Barely a day after the monumental Heller decision, the pundits have already begun to argue it means nothing.

In fact, Heller is a very important decision, finally clearing up what many people have tried to make the great ambiguity of the United States Constitution. For once and for all, Heller declares that each and every individual American has the right "to keep and bear arms." To say this is not an important decision is an attempt to denigrate its importance.

Consider a wholly different scenario: Imagine, if you will, a world where the First Amendment right to free speech had been written differently. Say, "the need for the people to express their concerns to their government through collective redress, the right to free speech shall not be abridged." Then, imagine further, if the founding fathers had said little to nothing about the right to free speech at the U.S. Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, followed by some differing debate at each original colony's state ratification convention. Maybe some of those states thought every person should have the right; maybe some argued it should be a person's right in certain qualified situations, such as at political rallies; maybe other states further still allowed some people to be exempted from exercising the right if they felt it was against their religion to speak openly in public. Then, imagine that debate is followed by over 200 years of little jurisprudence on the right, with no decisions ever actually stating as their holding that the right to free speech is an individual right, held by each and every American. Imagine, too, if debate loomed over the issue, with some arguing that the right is only available to people whenever they are working together for a common cause, but it is not available to every American, and others arguing that it is an absolute right held by all as individuals. Finally, imagine a world where this question is finally, for once and for all, clarified by a Supreme Court that reviews the entire record and finds that every American has the right to free speech, and may exercise the right within certain, acceptable limitations.

Sounds crazy, right? No one would ever question whether the right to freedom of speech is a collective or individual right. No one would ever even consider that such a right could be held only by the people as a collective. Of course, no one wonders whether free speech is a fundamentally held indivdual right in the United States because EVERYONE knows this country was founded because people wanted to be able to SAY whatever they wanted, without limitation from the government. I mean, isn't that why we fought the British back in the Revolutionary War?

Moreover, everyone knows that the right to freedom of speech was how the founders reacted to the tyranny they experienced from their prior government. So, it's unAmerican to even consider that such a right would not be held by each individual.

Contrast this with the Second Amendment right "to keep and bear arms." For years, many people have argued the issue. Some have said it's only a right to allow a state militia, i.e., a militia ultimately organized by the state government for national protection. Others have argued the right is held strictly by the individual so that he or she can engage in self-protection, hunting, and protection from tyranny. (And, many have argued the latter group is a bunch of crazies.)

But, the truth is that the Second Amendment right was so fundamental to the founders that they never questioned the issue. To consider a world where people could not bear arms was inconceivable to them. And, why? Because the founders understood that arms were necessary for three vital functions in life: 1. to feed oneself through hunting, 2. to protect oneself and one's family from mauraders, burglars, and ne'er-do-wells who might attempt to harm them, and 3. just like the allowances of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and freedom of assembly, to prevent TYRANNY.

Our founders considered the right to keep and bear arms to be just as basic and necessary as these other rights. To have a decision that FINALLY clears up the alleged "ambiguity" of this Amendment is HIGHLY IMPORTANT, and not limited.

What the Heller decision does is form a baseline, a constitutional minimum, which neither the federal government nor any state, county, city, or other political entity can abridge. The effect of Heller is not what limitations can be put on the right. (If we go back to the First Amendment analogy, more than 200 years of litigation still have not ironed out all the contours of that right.) The effect of Heller is to say to all those folks out there that wanted to COMPLETELY ban the use of firearms, that this is not acceptable in our free society, and that individuals will be allowed to keep arms in their homes for many purposes. This, certainly, is a decision of great importance.

District of Columbia v. Heller

Responses to D.C. v. Heller:
The National Rifle Association's Ecstatic Response

McCain, Obama, and Barr Weigh in on The Economist

Bob Barr Praises Heller

Obama Loves Heller Because it Allows the Limitations He Wants

The Brady Campaign Response

Thoughts on a Great Post-Punk Book

Simon Reynolds says, "The thing about living through a Golden Age is that you think it will never end." _Rip It Up and Start Again_ covers what has always seemed to be Generation X's Golden Age of music: post-punk. This general term covers everything from ska to new wave, from Goth to conceptual, from dance to trance.

The book covers the period from 1978 to 1984, and catalogues the most innovative bands of each genre. Based on interviews done over a period of 4 years, Simon Reynolds talked to some of the great mainstream post-punk acts (like the members of the Human League, Scritti Politti, and Devo) as well as some of the lesser played, but no less influential, bands (like Art of Noise, The Specials, and Cabaret Voltaire).

But, the book does more than just talk about important bands and their rise and fall. The book takes a historical approach to considering the rise and fall of the independent (as opposed to indie) record labels, e.g. Rough Trade, ZTT, et. al.; it tracks the rise of MTV; follows the move of the British bands from the UK to their success in America; and examines the cultural zeitgeist which led to post-punk and all its young progeny.

Whole genres are reviewed. (Finally, a good thumbnail history of Goth, for instance!) Entire scenes are described in bite-size components sure to spark further exploration by the reader. (Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds) And, a comprehensive review of the various influences and adaptations from punk are all covered. (Everything from Madness to Grace Jones.)

While the book is an enjoyable read for anyone interested in late 70s and early 80s pop, it is just as important for what it contributes to the academic literature on pop music. When writing a thesis on punk rock lyrics a few years ago, books like this on the punk era were hard to come by, because most books about music tend to either be fanzine-type hype or tributes to the artists that shy from genuine music criticism and accurate history. Reynolds' book is a wonderful first foray into critical writing about the post-punk period, and it will surely stand as a prototype for the more in-depth books that will naturally follow its lead.

Beyond that, it is an incredibly pleasurable read, with moving language that captures the essence of music journalism and criticism, while maintaining the excitement that each band, genre, and scene generated in its music.

For what my view is worth, this is one of the most important books on pop music to be written in a long while, and even post-punk naysayers should check it out, if only to enjoy its critical reviews of the period.