I do have to say that I find it tiresome when someone's definition of "class" dovetails neatly with their definition of "rural white person of average income", which is what Fussell appears to be doing.
I do, however, think that the blogger's Tennessee Taxonomy is possibly the best definition of "American class" you could ask for.
Not just lawyers. Remember Cher's plumber dad in Moonstruck? "Then, there's copper. Which is the only pipe I use. It's expensive, but it saves money in the long run. And ya gotta spend money to save money." "Uh...I think we better do what he says..."
Ha. I guess I didn't realize that while Tea Party people are stupid LaRouchian idiots, Global Warming is totally real and is totally going to totally kill everyone, like, real soon now.
The joy of seeing the world end isn't solely or even primarily a right-wing thing. Consider the Anthropogenic Global Climate Change movement (which used to be Anthropogenic Global Warming, and before that it was Global Cooling.) Consider the eight years of screaming about how George W. Bush was Emperor Palpatine (and the curious silence when people point out that, policy-wise, we're in GWB's third term.)
Considering that the blog post links to an article showing that people's experience is useless where it isn't flat damn wrong, it's rich to see you citing your "own experience" regarding the psychology and motivations of people you don't know and haven't met personally.
No. But if I don't like what the people who work for those CEOs do, then I can go buy things from the competition. If I don't like what the FDA does, what choice do I have? Move to another country?
This is actually a useful question; because, for a regulatory agency, "no activity" is not necessarily a failure mode. If nobody submits anything to the FDA for review, then ipso facto no unsafe drugs will be sold to consumers, and so the FDA's stated goals will be met!
Jaybird's point is that without government interference in the market, you would be able to vote your pocketbook.
There's nothing stopping M&P Liquor from saying "hey, those Liquor Warehouse guys are jerks, come to M&P liquor! We've got higher prices, but we make up for it with better service!" Except, that is, for government regulations regarding liquor stores. Maybe the reason that there isn't any competition to Liquor Warehouse is that the government has made it illegal for there to be more than one liquor store in a town...
For real-life examples of this, see Pennsylvania's laws about beer stores. You cannot have more than one beer store in a town. So if the guy running the beer store is a total asshole, then that's just too bad.
I think that a lot of the problem came from insistence--both by corporations and by government--on standards over solutions. Or, rather, the shift in business education to the idea that "a standard is a solution". It's a matter of looking at the success of kansai and learning the wrong lesson. (The Japanese weren't successful because they had a plan, they were successful because they worked their asses off and took personal pride in doing a good job.)
When put so much emphasis on following the standard", you give people the idea that following the standard is their job.
I should point out that I agree with you, by the way. If regulatory bureaucracy is going to claim that it derives its authority from being a neutral and objective arbiter, then it has to actually be that.
"The bank issuing your credit card is charted in South Dakota. The laws of South Dakota are incredibly favorable to card issuers on any number of issues, like usury for example. It is unlikely you can find an alternative."
Checks? Money orders? Cash? Paypal?
That you automatically reach for your credit card doesn't mean that it's the only possible way to exchange money for goods and services.
And the orthodox Libertarian response is that if those credit-card terms were so onerous as you believe, then there'd already be companies offering more lenient terms, and they'd have plenty of customers. Maybe the "race to the bottom" you decry is actually the market of providers finding the optimum price for the service they provide.
"And if you’re a customer service rep at my local big box retailer, I want you to make it right instead of passing my complaints up the chain of command. "
Well, but that's the problem. That customer service rep at the local big box retailer doesn't have the ability to make it right. The customer service rep has the ability to forward your complaint to our Service Department and can we offer you a twenty-dollar gift certificate for your next visit sir?
Which is, I think, what ED is railing against--the idea that It's The System that's responsible for everything, and that we're all just cogs in the machine, Just Working Here, I can do what I can do, it is what it is. I think that's the real thing that's scary about big-box retailers; the idea, pounded into the employees, that they're just part of the process, that there's no personal connection between them and the customer. The Best Buy down the street from me isn't owned by someone I know; nobody I know works there; nobody who works there lives in the neighborhood; and nobody in that store would give a hoot in hell if I went to Radio Shack or Fry's or even a different Best Buy. If I go in hopping mad about the flimsy piece of junk that just broke, and I leave even madder after throwing their Chinese-made crap in a garbage can, they'll just shrug their shoulders and post about it on notalwaysright.com.
And, really, why should they care? It's not their fault; they didn't decide to stock cheap junk, they didn't set the return policy to be "no returns unless it's unopened", they didn't decide to eliminate the film-noir section so they could stock more copies of "Piranha 3D". And there's no way I can talk to anyone who is responsible for those decisions; it was someone in a corner office in Chicago or something, six months ago.
Anyway, where I'm going with all this is that modern bureaucracy engenders and encourages a passing of personal responsibility to the nameless, faceless, mindless system. Nothing's the fault of the functionary; no, that's just The Rules.
Which is, in fact, a problem, because if you make a joke about bombs near an airport checkpoint, you are taken seriously. As in, the "big bullet-nosed flashlights in your orifices" kind of serious.
But, of course, "violent metaphors" in political speech are just jokes and we shouldn't take them seriously, right?
"I would love either if some popular politician came along who firmly insisted that religion belongs outside of the political sphere and/or the people themselves adopted that position. "
See, that's great to say, but it still comes down to interpretation.
Let's say that the manager of a DMV office declares that employees at that office may not wear religious symbols at work, because open display of religious symbols implies organizational acceptance and "religion is outside of the public sphere".
Why can't you argue that this declaration is itself an example of bringing religion into the public sphere?
The First Amendment says that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. That means no law, either good or bad, pro or con, favoring or disfavoring. I agree that religion shouldn't be part of the public sphere, but you seem to believe that means all members of government should be atheists...
On “Three Classes”
I do have to say that I find it tiresome when someone's definition of "class" dovetails neatly with their definition of "rural white person of average income", which is what Fussell appears to be doing.
I do, however, think that the blogger's Tennessee Taxonomy is possibly the best definition of "American class" you could ask for.
"
Not just lawyers. Remember Cher's plumber dad in Moonstruck? "Then, there's copper. Which is the only pipe I use. It's expensive, but it saves money in the long run. And ya gotta spend money to save money." "Uh...I think we better do what he says..."
On “The Moment of Impending Crisis”
...and what you call "retained profit" is what the people who talk about excessive corporate profit think is at 60%.
"
Ha. I guess I didn't realize that while Tea Party people are stupid LaRouchian idiots, Global Warming is totally real and is totally going to totally kill everyone, like, real soon now.
"
The joy of seeing the world end isn't solely or even primarily a right-wing thing. Consider the Anthropogenic Global Climate Change movement (which used to be Anthropogenic Global Warming, and before that it was Global Cooling.) Consider the eight years of screaming about how George W. Bush was Emperor Palpatine (and the curious silence when people point out that, policy-wise, we're in GWB's third term.)
"
Considering that the blog post links to an article showing that people's experience is useless where it isn't flat damn wrong, it's rich to see you citing your "own experience" regarding the psychology and motivations of people you don't know and haven't met personally.
On “Reclaiming Liberalism”
No. But if I don't like what the people who work for those CEOs do, then I can go buy things from the competition. If I don't like what the FDA does, what choice do I have? Move to another country?
"
...do what now? The only connection anyone at the FDA has with a ballot box is that the President appoints the person in charge.
On “Explaining that post that didn’t make sense”
This is actually a useful question; because, for a regulatory agency, "no activity" is not necessarily a failure mode. If nobody submits anything to the FDA for review, then ipso facto no unsafe drugs will be sold to consumers, and so the FDA's stated goals will be met!
On “Reclaiming Liberalism”
Jaybird's point is that without government interference in the market, you would be able to vote your pocketbook.
There's nothing stopping M&P Liquor from saying "hey, those Liquor Warehouse guys are jerks, come to M&P liquor! We've got higher prices, but we make up for it with better service!" Except, that is, for government regulations regarding liquor stores. Maybe the reason that there isn't any competition to Liquor Warehouse is that the government has made it illegal for there to be more than one liquor store in a town...
For real-life examples of this, see Pennsylvania's laws about beer stores. You cannot have more than one beer store in a town. So if the guy running the beer store is a total asshole, then that's just too bad.
"
When was the last time you voted for anyone who works at the FDA?
On “Explaining that post that didn’t make sense”
I think that a lot of the problem came from insistence--both by corporations and by government--on standards over solutions. Or, rather, the shift in business education to the idea that "a standard is a solution". It's a matter of looking at the success of kansai and learning the wrong lesson. (The Japanese weren't successful because they had a plan, they were successful because they worked their asses off and took personal pride in doing a good job.)
When put so much emphasis on following the standard", you give people the idea that following the standard is their job.
On “The bureaucratic mindset”
I should point out that I agree with you, by the way. If regulatory bureaucracy is going to claim that it derives its authority from being a neutral and objective arbiter, then it has to actually be that.
On “Reclaiming Liberalism”
"The bank issuing your credit card is charted in South Dakota. The laws of South Dakota are incredibly favorable to card issuers on any number of issues, like usury for example. It is unlikely you can find an alternative."
Checks? Money orders? Cash? Paypal?
That you automatically reach for your credit card doesn't mean that it's the only possible way to exchange money for goods and services.
And the orthodox Libertarian response is that if those credit-card terms were so onerous as you believe, then there'd already be companies offering more lenient terms, and they'd have plenty of customers. Maybe the "race to the bottom" you decry is actually the market of providers finding the optimum price for the service they provide.
On “The bureaucratic mindset”
You are aware that the while "Sarah Palin wanted to ban books" thing is total bullshit, right?
"
"...I’ve run into plenty of customer service blokes that bend, break, fold, spindle, or mutilate the rules to make the customer on the line happy.
But then you say...
"It’s probably the case that “I could get fired by my jerk boss who is a stickler for the rules” is another “care-dampener”. "
All I have to do is sit here and watch you argue with yourself :D
"
"And if you’re a customer service rep at my local big box retailer, I want you to make it right instead of passing my complaints up the chain of command. "
Well, but that's the problem. That customer service rep at the local big box retailer doesn't have the ability to make it right. The customer service rep has the ability to forward your complaint to our Service Department and can we offer you a twenty-dollar gift certificate for your next visit sir?
Which is, I think, what ED is railing against--the idea that It's The System that's responsible for everything, and that we're all just cogs in the machine, Just Working Here, I can do what I can do, it is what it is. I think that's the real thing that's scary about big-box retailers; the idea, pounded into the employees, that they're just part of the process, that there's no personal connection between them and the customer. The Best Buy down the street from me isn't owned by someone I know; nobody I know works there; nobody who works there lives in the neighborhood; and nobody in that store would give a hoot in hell if I went to Radio Shack or Fry's or even a different Best Buy. If I go in hopping mad about the flimsy piece of junk that just broke, and I leave even madder after throwing their Chinese-made crap in a garbage can, they'll just shrug their shoulders and post about it on notalwaysright.com.
And, really, why should they care? It's not their fault; they didn't decide to stock cheap junk, they didn't set the return policy to be "no returns unless it's unopened", they didn't decide to eliminate the film-noir section so they could stock more copies of "Piranha 3D". And there's no way I can talk to anyone who is responsible for those decisions; it was someone in a corner office in Chicago or something, six months ago.
Anyway, where I'm going with all this is that modern bureaucracy engenders and encourages a passing of personal responsibility to the nameless, faceless, mindless system. Nothing's the fault of the functionary; no, that's just The Rules.
"
They can't? What the hell do they do all day, then? Laws have got to be more than just position statements!
On “Some thoughts on Obama’s memorial service remarks”
Which is, in fact, a problem, because if you make a joke about bombs near an airport checkpoint, you are taken seriously. As in, the "big bullet-nosed flashlights in your orifices" kind of serious.
But, of course, "violent metaphors" in political speech are just jokes and we shouldn't take them seriously, right?
On “Commenter Tribunals”
"...it really seems unlikely that someone will drop a lot of f-bombs in anger at my thoughts on Thucydides."
Sure, but I could see Aeschylus provoking some nasty replies, because, well, you know.
On “Some thoughts on Obama’s memorial service remarks”
So, what, you'd be happier if she were out saying "yeah! One down, two hundred forty-five to go! Fly, my monkeys, fly!"
Is that really what you'd prefer?
On “Commenter Tribunals”
Congratulations, you invented the Bury Brigade.
On “Some thoughts on Obama’s memorial service remarks”
"I would love either if some popular politician came along who firmly insisted that religion belongs outside of the political sphere and/or the people themselves adopted that position. "
See, that's great to say, but it still comes down to interpretation.
Let's say that the manager of a DMV office declares that employees at that office may not wear religious symbols at work, because open display of religious symbols implies organizational acceptance and "religion is outside of the public sphere".
Why can't you argue that this declaration is itself an example of bringing religion into the public sphere?
The First Amendment says that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. That means no law, either good or bad, pro or con, favoring or disfavoring. I agree that religion shouldn't be part of the public sphere, but you seem to believe that means all members of government should be atheists...
"
But that isn't extremism. It's just stupidity.
"
"You know who else was worse than Hitler? "
Hitler's alien cloned brain in a robot gorilla body with LASERS!
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.