The New York Times reported on Labor Day 2010 that the Obama Administration has unveiled a new long term economic stimulus package that would begin with a $50 billion investment in public works projects, like railroads, air port runways and road construction. According to the Times:

“The $787 billion economic recovery act passed by Congress at the beginning of Mr. Obama’s presidency already included considerable spending on roads and other transportation infrastructure. But the White House says Mr. Obama’s new plan is different, because it would focus on a “long-term vision” as well as create jobs in the near term [emphasis added.”

So, at least this new stimulus spending is different…maybe it will lower the unemployment rate this time? And considering there won’t be a census for a little while we can look at real unemployment numbers and avoid the false positives of the previous year (which was chock-full of temporary census workers).

Two more ridiculous points:

Obama has still not figured out how he is going to pay for the stimulus, saying that he is going to work with Congress and find corporate tax breaks to eliminate (not that we need to encourage corporate growth or anything…) so as to avoid adding the deficit.

Ever the consensus builder, Obama has engaged Arnold Schwarzenegger, Ed Rendell and Michael Bloomberg (The consummate Republican, Democrat and Independent of America, respectively) to build consensus. Mr. President, are you serious?

With the Democrats hurting in the polls and talk of a Republican takeover in the midterm elections I wonder how much the inception of this new stimulus package owes to the terrible economic climate (and failure of the first stimulus) and how much it owes to politics.

Rating: 4 Out Of 10 PhilosoGuys

It is a rarity in today’s film scene for a science fiction film to be made without much computer generated idiocy (Avatar, for example). Science fiction used to mean something more than outer space dog fights and ridiculous aliens: it used to concern the human condition when faced with the rise of immense technological forces. Classics like 2001: A Space Odyssey and recent masterpieces like A.I. Artificial Intelligence (both written by Kubrik) succeed because we can relate: because we relate to the humanity of the characters we can question and ponder the great questions of human experience.

Needless to say, Repo Man does not call on us to question how the fabric of society will be altered through the rise of artificial organs and banking conglomerates. However, it does set the stage adequately for the audience to consider a future in which corporate interests control your humanity (something the facebook fanatics and twitter psychos readily surrender).

Visually, the movie is minimalistic and sparse in its infusion of science fiction into suburban Canada. Its best scene is when Jude Law and his female accomplice stumble into a robotic organ construction room. The room and its workers are covered in white: the action scene and destruction wreaked on the lab by swarms of security guards with rifles is quite impressive, reminiscent of the tight action scenes of Gamer.

Please excuse the Kubrick reference…but sometimes it feels like we are approaching a “Strangelovian” catastrophe.

Welcome to the age of incumbent superpowers, where the rules that apply to the everyday American citizen don’t apply to the people who work for us in the government. Perhaps it is a symptom of the “Old Boy” network in Washington, which continually seeks to protect its own ranks and insulate those in power from the full scope of the law. That is partially true. What is closer to the truth is that in Washington our politicians believe they are above the law. Just because they help draft laws does not mean they are above them (which might be obvious to us common folk).

The most recent news on the corruption in Washington is Representative Charlie Rangel, who was charged with 13 counts of corruption by the House Ethics committee. According to the New York Times, Rangel’s charges included”

“…his improper use of his office to solicit donations for a City University of New York center to be named in his honor; his failure to report rental income from his villa in the Dominican Republic and to pay taxes on it; his omission of some $600,000 in assets on his House financial disclosure forms; and his acceptance from a Manhattan developer of four rent-stabilized apartments, one of which he used as a campaign office.”

One might think that this is enough to put one of our politicians in jail (because it surely is enough to bag someone like me for at least tax evasion). However, the Ethics committee recommended only a “reprimand” for Rangel and not an ousting. The NY Times defends this by saying that other recent ethics hearings, Barney Frank and Newt Gingrich, were also resolved with reprimands. What it doesn’t tell you is that Frank’s crime was the use of Federal stationary and 83 of Gingrich’s 84 charges were dropped and the hearing was inconclusive (they left the determination of criminal activity up to the IRS). So, if those two cases ended in reprimands how can Rangel’s possibly be treated in the same way?

Representative Charlie Rangel should be ousted for disgracing his office and the Federal Government of the United States.

Rating: 8 Out Of 10 PhilosoGuys

“Pol Pot’s Birthday” is a hilarious short film that takes place on Pol Pot’s Birthday as he and his Khmer Rouge army retreat into the jungles of Cambodia following their defeat to the Vietnamese army. The acting is spectacularly comical and dark: Pol Pot’s mood swings and deadpan delivery combined with the awkwardness and helplessness of his companions (the General, the Chef and, my favorite, the Intern) are excellent.

You can find the short here: http://www.babelgum.com/4026495/pol-pots-birthday.html

America has always been heralded as the great melting pot: people from across the world were suposed to come to the new world and create a new democratic and uniquely American culture that was united by personal liberty and shared ideals. And while many people would still consider the United States a melting pot, it is quite clear that it is anything but such a pot. We know the true history: Italians occupied their specific area of the city, as did the Irish…African Americans were enslaved, Chinese Americans were killed building the American railroads, and Native Americans were exterminated.

But the headlines, it seems to me, are always filled with the news of America’s progress towards some ideal of a post-racal society. The election of our first black President, whose middle name is Hussein, was heralded as one such indicator of a fundamental shift in the United States. The term “Majority Minority” is the new catchphrase that describes the demographic trend in America, where the current majority white population will slowly decrease proportionally with regard to “minority” groups.

There are two points to consider about the post-racial society. The first is that simply because America is becoming more diverse does not mean that it is post racial. What’s even more concerning is that this quick demographic change can often lead to the rise of intense, race-induced prejudices. How often do we hear about foreign groups stealing American jobs…etc. Regardless of the truth or fiction of these statements, race plays a role in, at least, the expression of these frustrations. This in turn tends to entrench racial identities among respective groups.

Second, if we were truly a post-racial society then none of these racial and demographic changes would truly matter. Think of it this way: what would you think of an Ivy-league educated intellectual who decries the aloofness of the Ivory tower and the heartlessness of the establishment. Hint: you shouldn’t take him/her seriously. The mere fact that American intellectuals/media waits for any particle of an indication that our country moves towards a post-racial society (i.e. its intense focus on race) disproves what they try to prove.

If you have seen the new GM commercials you know what I am talking about. GM CEO Ed Whitacre speaks about how GM has paid back its loan to the United States, with interest, and that GM’s new goal is to make their company a company that America can be proud of again.

People who are not outraged by this commercial have easily forgotten how GM got into this mess to begin with: unreasonable deals made with their unions combined with large amounts of dollars flooding into Washington that insulated GM from market forces and foreign competition. If that’s not enough, GM didn’t realize (hard to imagine after the ’79 oil crisis, but true nevertheless) the trend towards more fuel efficient cars as the key to the future of any car company.

Where did this lead GM? To financial ruin, and rightfully so: if you do not obey the market and adapt to its influences then you will fail, pure and simple. So, please explain to me why my tax dollars should go to bailing your mismanaged company out of financial ruin?

The only American car company I am proud of is Ford, who bit the bullet, did not take government financing, and got back to the basics: Americans want quality cars at competitive prices. Take a look at the new Taurus’ and you will know what I am talking about.

The events unfolding in the Southwestern U.S. are quite troubling. Can cities and states wage economic warfare against each other? That is what Los Angeles has done by effectively levying an embargo on Arizona’s goods and services. In turn, Arizona has threatened to turn off its electrical supply to the city. If you took the states’ names out of these sentences, you could mistake this for a call to action against Chinese goods and services or Russia threatening to cut off gas lines to Eastern Europe and Germany.

This is an outrage: how can an American city “punish” an American state for drafting a law to curb the flow of illegal aliens who are citizens of another country? The Obama administration needs to stand up and take some leadership on this issue. While states may be allowed to disagree with each other or with the federal government they must be expressly forbidden to engage in harmful action towards other states (or the federal government). What’s the point of being an American if I cannot even trust another city or state in my own country?

For a good read check out: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64I6UA20100519?type=domesticNews

Many will remember Arlen Specter for his deft political maneuvering over the past couple of years (I will personally remember him for screaming at Ted Kennedy during the Judicial Confirmation hearings of Justice Alito). Last night marked the end of his long career in his defeat in a Democratic primary election. Speculation concerning the political death of one member of the old guard abounds: “The rain killed Arlen…Whatever chance he had went down with the rain,” said Pennsylvania Governor Edward G. Rendell. How will Specter characterize his defeat? Even his switch from a Republican to a Democrat could save his reelection bid.

It would appear that Specter, and Rendell for that matter, is mistaken as to the true reason underlying his defeat. The defeat is acknowledgement of two facts: the first is the general discontent with how the old boy network has been running the United States. Specter has been around for 30 years and Americans are dying for new blood, with new perspectives and a fresh approach to how Washington does business. We saw this with the election of President Obama, who ran explicitly on a strategy of building consensus and revolutionizing how politicking was conducted on Capitol Hill and from the White House.

The second is a general discontent with the Democratic party. Bush-bashing has lost its appeal: the White House, Senate, and Congress are under the firm control of the Democrats (except the loss of a filibuster-proof political process) so who will the American public now blame? Since the economic stimulus package unemployment has remained high (and underestimated as people stopped looking for jobs or their unemployment benefits expired). The wars are still on halfway across the world (and escalated by Obama). I know it’s nothing new when I say we can all be assured that we will see a Republican resurgence this fall. But, across party lines, I am sure we will an “out with the old and in with the new” approach to voting.

Sorry, Arlen, old buddy…nothing you could have done would have been enough to save you.

NYTimes article cited: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/19/us/politics/19specter.html?ref=politics

A recent Center for Disease Control and Prevention study reports that suicide is the 11th leading cause of death in the United States and that there are more suicides each year than homicides. Suicide is also most common among men, Native Americans, whites and people between 45 and 54 years of age. This is quite an alarming age range, even more so because younger people are now committing suicide than ever before (the average age used to be 80 and above).

According to this report, of those who committed suicide, people with a “Currently Depressed Mood” numbered at 43.6%, a “Current Mental Health Problem” were 41.9 % and “Current Mental Health Treatment” were at 32.8%. Though there is overlap here (the report also outlines alcohol abuse as another factor), it is safe to say that not everyone who commits suicide has these depression issues and that exhibiting a “Currently Depressed Mood” is an incredibly broad characterization.

It is also worth noting that this study was based on numbers in 2007, well before the economic downturn, when things were supposed to be “better.” Of course, just because Wall Street is enjoying a pay day doesn’t mean things are better. In fact, the average wage has declined in the United States, when you factor in inflation. And all the jobs that were gained since the dot com bubble burst have all been lost. So, it could be a reflection on the economy. It could also be a bleak reflection on the state of American life: disillusionment, unhappiness and a sense of the unfulfilled life. On average, Chinese and Indian citizens are more optimistic about their country and lives than their counterparts in America and Europe: perhaps those living in the West are spent and jaded?

Either way, whether its economic or social, any shift of the majority of suicides to younger people is a serious change, and an ominous one at that.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnOAXvSiybA

Commercials are changing. Think about commercials from 15 years ago: mini narratives selling a specific aspect of a product. Reliable cars, tasty snacks, comfortable shoes. Today, the nature of the commercial has changed. Quirky humor and randomness dominate…just take a look at Progressive Insurance or Geico. Somewhere in the background a product is sold but the main interaction is in the humor, which is often disjointed and abstract.

The other night I was watching TV and saw the latest Sobe commercial. The commercial begins with some complete jerk harassing his coworkers. He’s got some great one-liners, telling Debby she should be jumping out of cakes instead of eating them or his antisocial friend to get a friend-finding app to improve his social situation. The next thing you know, this guy gets thirsty and takes a sip of the new Sobe drink. Suddenly, we cut to a shot of Ashley Greene (of “Twilight” fame) laying on the beach in a bikini. Then it cuts back to the main guy, who now thinks that his office building is throwing a luau and his coworker has now become a gecko. He takes another sip of his sobe, which sends the commercial full on into shots of Ashley Greene rolling in the sand and an awesome song (o0Oo0Oo U by Oberhofer).

After I saw the commercial and sorted through what I just saw, I realized that it combines three things that I love: sarcasm, hot girls and good music. This type of commercial is one of two things: ahead of its time or drunk on the excesses of pop culture. Time will tell.