Welcome to THE COMMONS -- News and Views for Windham County, Vermont

2012-02-02T10:51:00.000-08:00

Welcome to THE COMMONS -- News and Views for Windham County, Vermont My 15 min of fame in Brattleboro thanks to Hester Prynne! Watch for national readings, and order a first edition, signed copy!

April/May Commentaries

2011-05-24T15:33:00.000-07:00

LET’S HEAR IT FOR THE BAD BOYS

I’ve had it. I’m sick of corporate bullies and con artists, banker bums, oil execs, and creeps in political office. Enough already. It’s time to stop legitimizing members of The Rich and Powerful Pervert Club when what they deserve is a good whack upside the head.

Anyone who watched the Congressional hearings in which executives of the big five multinational oil companies threatened members of Congress when questioned about corporate profits and the need for oil subsidies saw how arrogant these guys are. Remove our subsidies? We’ll take our business off-shore! Armed with egos the size of Mt. McKinley, this fraternal order of spoiled elitists, whose companies collectively made nearly a trillion dollars in profit over ten years, simply gave Congress the finger. Yet they glibly expect to receive $36.5 billion in various tax subsidies over the next decade. Just two of these tax breaks would save $18 billion over that same ten years.

Wall Street, which made a quick recovery from its banking maneuvers, stands to see impressive profitability this year. Bonuses are down a bit but JPMorgan employees will receive over $369,000. At Goldman Sachs the average bonus this year is $430,700, despite a 14 percent drop from 2010. It’s better if you’re in top management. Citigroup’s Chief Financial Officer got $2.33 million in salary while the company’s Vice Chairman received $4.29 million.

Pharmaceutical company executives are right up there with health insurance industry execs when it comes to screwing us little folk. One of their games is “pay-for-delay” deals. This machination involves paying generic companies to drop patent challenges so the big boys can keep their monopolies longer while Medicare and Medicaid recipients lose out on cost reductions. Here’s one example reported by the LA Times: “According to a lawsuit filed by the Federal Trade Commission, the company Cephalon paid a total of $200 million to several generics companies to get them to drop patent challenges to its drug Provigil. The deals staved off competition from no-name rivals until 2012.” Apparently the company’s CEO thought this was great. "We were able to get six more years of patent protection," he said. "That's $4 billion in sales.”

Health insurers also seem to have been absent when Ethics class was offered. While most Americans suffered through a deep economic recession, health insurance companies increased their profits by 56 percent in 2009, the same year that nearly three million people lost their private coverage. The country’s five largest for-profit insurers closed 2009 with a combined profit of over $12 billion according to Health Care for America Now. How did they do it? Largely by dropping subscribers and raising premiums. Cigna, one of the largest health insurance companies in the U.S., increased its profits 346 percent while enrollment dropped by 5.5 percent. Similarly, California’s largest insurer, Blue Cross, raised its premiums by over 30 percent.

Speaking of California, let’s hear it for political bad boy, Arnold Schwarzenegger. He’s now a member in good standing of Alpha Delta Pi, Greek for Awfully Difficult to Keep It in My Pants. What’s with these guys? I mean, just think about the string of politically powerful men who can’t seem to get it that testosterone is not a complimentary ticket to free feels and fatherhood. (Talk about overgrown muscles and under-developed minds!)

Of course the biggest bad boy of them all right now is Dominique Strauss-Kahn, former IMF chief and once-favored son of France’s political apparatus. This guy is a piece of work and according to lots of folks he always has been. The French newspaper Le Monde described him as “a scandal waiting to happen” while reporting that “those closest to him see the risks of…a frenzied desire to seduce women.” DSK as he is known, is said to enjoy a Paris hotel bar where he has been observed being “too pushy with young women.” In 2007 while under consideration to head the IMF, one journalist blogged, “His only real problem is his behavior with women. … This fault of his is well-known by the media but no one speaks about it.”

Finally someone has. Kudos to her. Sadly, it is not DSK’s third wife, who told reporters some time ago that she was not upset with her husband’s proclivities. “I’m rather proud,” Anne Sinclair said. “It’s important for a political man to be able to seduce.” The woman who did put him in his current pickle is someone without power and prestige. What she does have is a strong sense of right and wrong, and presumably enough personal integrity not to allow a bizarre, crude, and possibly criminal madman to violate her. The suggestion that this woman would participate in a political drama or ploy to extract money from this goon says more about those who propose such a scenario in his defense than the hotel maid who has charged him with sexual assault.

So Enough! Let’s hear it for the bad boys, once-and-for-all. Boo! Hiss! We’ve had it with profiteering opportunists and slimy sexists! I don’t care how brilliant you supposedly are; without integrity, good judgment, and a moral compass, I don’t want you anywhere near government, businesses, or my person. Hands off! Go back to your caves and stay there until you are ready to come out, real men, not bad boys. Maybe then the rest of us regular folks could breathe easy again.

*************

HIP HIP HOORAY FOR A HOPEFUL, IF SLIGHTLY OVER-THE-TOP DAY

When it comes to pageantry, you have to admit that no one pulls it off quite like the British. The royal wedding, in keeping with longstanding, posture-perfect, don’t-miss-a-beat tradition, was an exceptional show. Even naysayers who think the monarchy is archaic, parasitic and irrelevant had to concede a certain excellence in the event, understated as it was by Westminster Abbey standards. Certainly, none of the millions of people around the world who watched the highly anticipated nuptials could possibly have been disappointed.

Being married to a Brit, and the mother of two half-British offspring, I was among those who rose at 5:30 a.m. to watch the red-carpet arrival of the royals and to see The Dress as Kate got into her limo. Wouldn’t have missed it! Camilla in her oversized hat, The Queen erect and, well, queenly, in her gold ensemble, “the boys” in their military garb entering the Abbey where their mother had been laid to rest. Who can deny the curiosity we all had, and the thrill of almost being there in real time?

And who can deny that the lovely Kate and the charming Will, who so clearly love each other and who have brought a breath of fresh air into an institution on life support, weren’t wonderful to watch, she in that magnificently understated gown, he glowing with pride and communicating with her by way of his wry smile? The trees were a nice touch, the music was moving, the words they composed together for the occasion were beautiful and full with meaning.

In a time of unspeakable tragedies and overt anxiety, an age when nuclear reactors explode, tornadoes and tsunamis level entire cities, economic collapse is a real possibility, death and destruction come to us live from various parts of the world in revolt, didn’t we all need a time to partake of beauty and love, to rejoice in ritual, to remind ourselves that there is hope?

Thanks, Catherine and William, we needed that.

At the same time, I understand those who charge that the event was “the epitome of elitism” as someone I know said. I’m pretty disturbed myself at the cost of The Dress alone, not to mention all the other expense of such an extravaganza. Just think of all that silver, china, and crystal, all those flowers, the canapés and wine, the carriages, the before and after clean-up, the security detail, the pounds sterling just keep adding up in mindboggling amounts. I get it. But I don’t think, as some have suggested, that the whole thing was “obscene.”

Obscene is politicians in our country acting unilaterally to kill democracy in their communities and states (think Wisconsin and Michigan) or passing legislation that makes it infinitely harder for some voters to register (Arizona). Obscene is trying to end the constitutional right to abortion, state by state, and attempting to put an agency like Planned Parenthood, which provides so much primary health care to poor women, out of business. Obscene is a potential presidential candidate spewing F-bombs like a child having a temper tantrum to get attention. Racial undertones such as those present in questioning President Obama’s bona fides is obscene as is so-called budget reform on the backs of the old, the sick, and the poor while the rich still get huge tax breaks.

None of these things would the newly named Duke and Duchess of Cambridge espouse or support. To the contrary, they appear to represent and stand for fundamental decency, at all levels of human interaction (listen again to the words they crafted in the personal prayer they wrote). I believe they will serve their country well and in so doing, will make Britain proud.

So I don’t condemn them for their wedding day, even though I am not a royalist. Like many others, I took pleasure in the respite their grand event afforded. I wish them long life and much happiness, monarchs or not. (I like to think of them as just Kate and Will – that in itself gives me hope for a better future.)

Perhaps my daughter put it best after the event; “Not that I’m into monarchies per se,” she wrote on her Facebook page. “But wedding gowns, wild hats, the abbey, Sir Elton John, choirs, trumpets, crumpets, and myrtle! Love? Yes! Oh, yes indeed!”
************************

IS THE RESPONSE TO BIN LADEN’S KILLING A CAUTIONARY TALE?

The extraordinary U.S. operation in Pakistan that resulted in the death of Osama Bin Laden was an amazing military feat. Given that framework, it is cause for national gratitude insofar as we honor the men and women who volunteer to defend our nation and its interests. It was also a testament to the considered intelligence and courage of a president whom many have called indecisive, passive, and lacking in experience. To the extent that it impacted the so-called War on Terrorism by removing its central symbol, it is to be welcomed and applauded.

There is no doubt that the world is a better place without Osama Bin Laden. Nor is there any doubt that this was an awesome act carried out by a country the world looks to for decisive leadership. It was an extraordinary moment in American history and it will find its place in the annals of significant events shared by the world. No doubt it will, like 9-11, become part of our collective unconscious.

Nevertheless, I am among those people (and commentators) who feel deeply uneasy about the way many Americans – and perhaps others – responded to the event. There was something alarming if not macabre about the (mainly male) young folks who ran to the White House or Times Square waving flags, singing the National Anthem, clowning before the TV cameras, and basically acting like the whole event were a keg party at a frat house. As one young woman put it to me, “It’s a man’s world and it always will be.”

What she was putting her finger on was the machismo inherent in war games and in that kind of celebrating in what many of us felt should have been a somber moment of reflection and remembrance for the thousands of victims of 9-11.
Sure, the nation needed to feel a sense of unity and a modicum of relief. But were cries of “We got him!’ really appropriate? Was this the time to flaunt pride and power? Wasn’t there something disturbingly nationalistic about that kind of xenophobic response?

Dr. David Gushee blogging on Huffington Post (5/2/11) from a somewhat spiritualist perspective said this: “For those of us who embrace a version of just war theory…our response is disciplined by belief that war itself is tragic and that all killing in war, even in self-defense, must be treated with sobriety and even mournfulness. War and all of its killing reflects the brokenness of our world.
That is the proper spirit with which to greet this news.”

Some people may find his words a bit too passive or pacifist, but I find them to be a gentle reminder that we still have a lot of work to do when it comes to thinking about what kind of world we wish to leave our children, and what it is we want to teach them while we are still around. One lesson, it seems to me, is that there is something wrong about dancing in the streets over death.

President Obama struck the right tone in sharing with the country news of what had taken place, and he was right to emphasize respect for Islamic tradition in the way that Bin Laden’s burial was handled. (I shudder to think what his predecessor might have said.) He set an example for how we could all react to this monument event.

But beyond that, it seems deeply important that we think about what happened in serious, substantive ways, and that we reject jubilation in favor of considered reflection. In the jargon of the day, we need to “process” what the death of Bin Laden, and the way it was handled, really means for us as a nation of values and vision. Military history can record the event in its own way; our task is to understand it in humanistic terms and to think about how we react, individually and nationally, to such a significant event.

My hope is that we will not respond with thoughtless jingoism and demonstrations of nationalism that seem one step removed from goose-stepping demonstrations of pseudo-superiority and smugness. That would render the demise of a true villain trivial and if you think about it, would represent a terrifying statement about who we are as a country and a people. No keg party could possibly be worth it.
****************

WHEN YOU’RE HUNGRY FOR TOUCH, TECHNOLOGY WON’T DO

One day not long ago I received a phone call from a major humanitarian organization. I mistook the call for a fundraising solicitation but the young woman on the other end of the line quickly set me straight. “I saw your resume on the Internet,” she said, “and you’d be perfect to write a proposal for us.” She needed the work done quickly so I said I’d clear a week from my calendar. “Great!” she said. “I’ll call you back by tomorrow.” That was the last I ever heard from her – or her so-called humanitarian organization. Clearly she’d found someone more suitable (or perhaps cheaper) and didn’t need me any more, and in this age of impersonal rather than interpersonal communication, she saw no need to make a courtesy call to let me know I wasn’t needed.

Around the same time, I learned that I had to have an unsettling surgical procedure done. I quickly emailed several friends on whom I rely for moral support, much as they count on me. Every one of them wrote me a message of concern with offers of help. I knew they would be there for me one hundred percent if and when I needed them, and for that I love them all. At the same time, I noticed something significant: Very few of them picked up the phone to call and only a handful stopped by or asked if I would like a visit.

I thought about “the good old days” when people rallied around each other in stressful times, when women went immediately to their friends huts and homes if something was amiss, when the first thing you did was show up and offer comfort. As a child, when my mother was sick, not a day went by when one neighbor or another didn’t check on us. (Everyone had each other’s key.) Those visits usually included something of sustenance. Today sustenance is a telegraphically written computer message.

I’m not a child now and I wasn’t feeling particularly needy when I emailed my friends. I am willing to ask for help when I need it and I didn’t want people to worry. At the same time, it would have been really nice to have a real-time conversation about what was happening, or to receive a follow-up phone call from my “humanitarian” solicitor. So I’m not chastising my chums; I’m simply reflecting on the reality of what technology has robbed us of and ruminating on its insufficiencies in times of trouble. I’m also (yet again) bemoaning the loss of fundamental courtesy and responsiveness wrought by devices that make us think we can’t take a few minutes to be nice to people.

Some folks might point out that I also used the ‘net to inform my friends about what was happening. Sure, technology has its uses and benefits. But it will never take the place of human contact, and it surely is no excuse for abrogating professional courtesy.

I worry a lot about what communication technology is doing to us, and what it is taking away from our lives. I’ve posited before that we are mutating as a species in ways we can’t yet imagine. I have also become increasingly determined not to let people treat me poorly or render me invisible just because I’m no longer a necessary commodity.

That’s why I wrote – yes, by email – to my humanitarian friend. Here, in part, is what I said: “It is certainly acceptable to determine that my services are not needed. However, it is not permissible not to tell me so or to simply ignore me. Surely our common humanity expects of us that we respect each other personally and professionally, for without that, and without some form of interpersonal exchange, are we not at risk of becoming automatons whose only value lies in what we can take from each other?”

That was the second time in less than three months that I’d written a letter like that, not only because I refuse to let people “get away” with unresponsive and rude behavior, but because I believe it is really important to remind people -- especially young, tech-savvy people -- that feelings (not to mention one’s time) matter and should not be played with, that needs are important and should be acknowledged, and that someday they might well find themselves on the receiving end of the void, and if they do, they won’t like it very much.

The bottom line is this: Technology has its place and its payoffs, but it will never replace human touch, literally and metaphorically. If we are to remain human – and humane – we need to keep that in mind, especially every time we think we don’t have enough time to talk to someone.
***************

Elayne Clift

Welcome to THE COMMONS -- News and Views for Windham County, Vermont

April/May Commentaries