Paralysis of the Mind

One must wonder, did the Schiavo protestors march on Washington in March 2002, railing against the senseless loss of life that would unfold in Iraq over causes that -- amazingly -- have been proven not to exist just two years later?

Have the children who are getting arrested trying to bring in food and water to a woman who cannot eat attempted to bring George W. Bush, who is trying to cut Medicaid, the very system that allows Terry Schiavo to exist, a copy of their parents' insurmountable medical bills?

Did the guy, with the sheet done up to look as though it is bloody, stand in front of Texas' death row to protest the thousands of people killed? Have the Schiavo's parents ever referred to the death penalty as "judicial homicide?" Has anyone asked George W. Bush what Jesus would say about his judicial homicide of Carla Faye Tucker?

Will Catholics and Christians march upon Congress, screaming to continue malpractice insurance as it provided the seed money to fund Schiavo's hospice care, as Congress, on Bush's guarantee, tries to limit or cut tort payouts?

Did any of those protestors push the Catholic Church to admit that it had assisted the Nazis in rounding up European Jews in the 1930s? Have any of them adopted one of the millions of children around the world at risk of starvation? Have any of them protested the spread of guns? Have the protestors protested what's happened in the Sudan, Rwanda, Bosnia or Somalia? Have they worried about practices in China? Mexico? That the clothes they wear were sewn by 8-year-olds in Bangladesh under conditions that could easily be deadly? That the minimum wage isn't enough to survive on here in America? That the military budget is 50 times larger than every single social program the government has -- combined? That minorities have shorter lifespans?

Yes, it's very easy to be pro-life.

I don't know anyone who works 40 hours a week.

Sure, I know plenty of people who are scheduled for those hours, or some reasonable approximation thereof (my own corporate behemoth decreed 37.5 hours a week for hourly employees, a nice way to save some money I imagine).

But somehow, just about everyone I know finds a way to bust right through 40 hours a week, despite not getting paid for the overtime. It's not difficult to understand the reasoning, and often there's good reasons behind it. But the overwhelming sense is that nobody wants to be bad at their job.

For my complaints about the irresponsibility and laziness of America, that's one area where I have to say most of the country seems to excel. Unfortunately, it's a quality that is apparent not just to employees, but to employers.

As such, the scam that runs across all lines of business is both completely invisible and totally obvious: if everyone wants to work hard, everyone wants to be good at their job, why NOT have smaller workforces and make everyone work harder? It works on so many levels, too. Nobody wants to be "that guy" who is the lazy one in the office, nobody feels good about leaving work on the table for the next person in line to do, and getting a big job done is definitely rewarding on several levels.

But I've never understood that force propelling the employee to push so hard. I said at the top that nobody I know works 40 hours a week, and it's very simple to see why. Even if you're not at the office/store/business/factory, often (too often, for many) you've got work on your mind. I catch myself doing it all the time: today I stopped into work on my day off and gave them information I thought they might be interested in. I'm sure my corporate masters would be pleased. If they took time from their 60-hour work week, that is.

Labor unions curbed some of that for a while, but as our society bounded out of control hard right, a few things have changed. Firstly, unions got a little too big for their britches and made a few questionable moves. As a quasi-liberal thing in a conservative country, that's practically putting the gun in your own mouth. Next, of course, the idea about working has changed. Nowhere is this more apparent than how unions themselves no longer tend to vote even a little left. With minimum wage grounded at pre-1950 levels (in terms of real dollars) and as the Republicans do their best to increase single-entity ownership, reduce competition in every possible business and currently are trying to make it impossible to declare bankruptcy (as though having to go through the shame of admitting you completely fucked up your money and destroying your credit for a good long time is some kind of happy state...) while meanwhile slicing taxes of the rich... you get the picture. Why, if you make less than $1,000,000 a year you'd vote for that is beyond me, but hey -- look -- GAY PEOPLE ARE GETTING MARRIED!

Putting yourself in the ground via work has become the new American Dream. And people keep signing up for it, happily seeing trees of money instead of the forest of labor. Partly, this is due to the ridiculous spending habits of America, but that's another entry altogether. Living is expensive, and most of us don't get paid all that well -- no matter how many hours we work.

But the real point of a labor union was not to actively give the workers power, it was supposed to simply give the workers equality. Management held all the cards once, and unions changed that. Now, the deck has become tilted, and it isn't good for the little folks. The drive to be a good worker could be harnessed the right way. It could be matched by the drive to run a good business -- a business that is not just driven by the bottom line, but also by a good product AND workers that are content. Companies pay a lot of lip service to having happy employees, but in every company I've worked in, it's pretty much all been bullshit. They want happy employees who work too many hours for less pay than they deserve. Hey, from a business standpoint, that's a great idea. From the standpoint of generating any loyalty or keeping up service or a product by continuity, well, you can forget it, because in their eyes, everyone is replaceable. The next guy or gal will be just as happy to work your hours until they grow disenchanted and then the cycle just keeps rolling on...

That point, a long time ago, led groups of people to get together and make a stand. Hey, maybe it would be nice if kids didn't have to work. Hey, maybe it would be nice if the company made sure the mine shaft didn't collapse so often. Hey, maybe it would be nice if we didn't have to work 60 hours a week. Hey, why can't we get paid just a little more?

Those questions have been replaced by the stock answer of "Well, capitalism is the best so..." But why? To me, the most stunning change in our country is the stunning displacement of morals as soon as things are outside of our borders. Factory workers bitch about losing their jobs when Wal-Mart finds out it can shave a few million dollars by having 8-year-olds in Bangladesh sew stiches in cheap footballs, but people who worry about those 8-year-olds are considered odd or stupid. Or better yet, I hear: "Oh, well it's the best option they have." Isn't that a chilling thought to anyone? Maybe it is their best option. So it's either the little girl stiches for 30 cents a day, becomes an underage prostitute or starves? The important thing here is that the Wal-Mart has those footballs and can charge 59 cents for 'em.

But it's our fault. We've let corporations run roughshod over the law for a long time, and we're going to continue paying that price for the forseeable future. And best of all: there's a large majority of people in our country who would gladly keep that rolling, even though they're the ones who are hurt the most by it. We're awful secure over here, happy, fat and warm. It isn't OUR 8-year-old who has to work despite broken fingers and a developing case of asthma because the factory isn't required to have a ventilation system. And it isn't our 8-year-old who's eying prostition to pay the bills 'cause they don't want the factory job (unless, of course, your 8-year-old is on Springer or Maury, in which case, I'm real sorry.)

It was not that long ago that Wal-Mart made a point of trying to sell a lot of stuff Made in the USA. I remember those commercials, with Proud Americans buying Proud Items made by Proud Factory Workers with Pride in America... and now, what? The Memory Hole sucked down the national pride, and instead, replaced everything with plastic crap made by kids. I'm sure the tiny hands are helpful in stitching; I'm also sure those kids live brutal lives that I can't possibly imagine. But the bottom line? I'm sure Sam Walton, wherever he may be, is quite Proud.

I'm not advocating anything here, but there's an easy start: make the 40 hours stick. It's nice how everyone wants to pitch in, but it's less nice how we get taken advantage of when we do. If labor unions were smart, they'd start there. If the Democratic Party were smart, it might do the same (insert your own snicker here). Hell, even mammoth corporations are running ads lamenting the lost vacation -- those hilarious commercials from Universal Studios about how Americans are working themselves into graves. I'm SURE they have wonderful vacation packages for their low-wage employees at Universal, yessirree, and I bet NOBODY dares work a minute over 40 hours there... it would be funnier, I imagine, if only it were Wal-Mart, and they showed my little 8-year-old Bangladeshi girl on a ride at Disney World...

But those footballs! They're only 59 cents! Look over there!

Newt Gingrich was a big fan of the word "morals."

At the height of the Clinton witch-hunt/shaming of the Oval Office (this depends how you look at it, I'm going in for a lot from column A and a nice chunk of column B) Gingrich and his cronies used the moral pitch to try and bring the country in.

What a shame it was to find out that Gingrich turned out to be so shamefully amoral. Twice divorced. Was taken to court by an ex-wife because he couldn't pay child support. Brought divorce papers to his second ex-wife while she was in the hospital receiving chemotherapy. Had affairs. Took obscene amounts of money in campaign donations from questionable sources. Had a flap over the millions of dollars he was forwarded for a book. Referred to women's periods as "infections" (okay, technically not amoral, but awful dumb).

Yes, Newt Gingrich is a shiny beacon of morality, along with the right-wing crowd that has followed in his footsteps using 12-cent words like "patriotic" and "moral." But in practice, the right-ward turn in our country's morals and values actually makes our great land far less moral.

And a lot less responsible.

How, you ask? Very simple. Endless lampooned on "South Park" is Kyle's mother, who is always seemingly on a quest to -- in her mind -- make the world safer for her son somehow by banning something, whether it be free speech, Canadian humor, fart jokes... whatever. Instead of taking the time to deal with her son, she consistently goes for the top of whatever problem she faces, ignoring the human component of being a parent.

Although I may disagree politically with the show's message (and probably would feel the same way about the writers) they certainly nailed that ugly little trait dead-on. Simply put, it is not that difficult to be a parent, but if you can't communicate with your kids, you've failed. There are bad things in the world, things they'll have to deal with and things you don't want them to see or do. Tilting your lance at those windmills will accomplish nothing, and eventually you'll turn into a caricature -- trying to ban works of art, or railing against hip-hop lyrics... or, God help you, Tipper Gore... *shudder*

Instead, talk to those kids. The point of parenting is not to somehow change the world. The world is very, very big. However one can certainly change a child's mind, or -- again, parenting -- instill the child with enough grounding to make the right choice when he or she has to make a choice.

This is not difficult. Nervous about TV sex? Don't set your kid in front of the idiot box. Concerned he'll be into porn on the internet? Set limits, and be watchful. I'm consistenly amazed at those anti-drug commercials that urge parents to talk to their kids and to "be nosey." Are parents in this country so insanely out-of-control that they're NOT like that now? Have parenting skills declined so far that just talking to your kids is a novel idea? I guess I wouldn't know; my ass was too busy chatting at the dinner table with my family when I was growing up. Is that really too much to ask now?

But no, no, the hard-core fundamentalists pick up their torches a few times a year ready to do battle with the invisible enemy. Is Spongebob gay? Can a lesbian couple be shown on TV? Is that Dennis Franz's ass again? Did somebody show off a body part this year?

Gosh, does that really matter? Someday your child is going to be out of the house and off making his or her own decisions. Isn't it a lot more important that you taught him right from wrong instead of crusading against a cartoon? What's your child going to think: "gee, Mom must have loved me -- she got SpongeBob cancelled!"

Doubtful.

And hey, you can teach kids that the world is full of shiny perfect beauty, where sex isn't an urge, homosexuals are condemned to hell, God guides perfectly and nothing bad ever happens. When they do hit the real world -- and the real world hits back with a tire iron -- you're welcome to leave them even more dazed and confused because of the nonsense you filled their heads with. As a parent, that's your choice. But actually trying to make the world like that is not helping anyone, especially the children you are striving so hard to protect.

Furthermore, the people really concerned about this "moral decay" then begin to decay their own moral values by the crazed obsession of changing America. So concerned with the anti-homosexual anti-sex craze, "good" Christians of this country skip several Bible passages by propping up corrupt leaders who promise moral change. What sort of message does it send to children that it is not okay to show your boobs on television and heaven help you if you're gay, but it's okay to slaughter innocent people? Last time I looked, "Thou shalt not be gay" was not a Commandment, but "Thou shall not kill" is. Also the whole "love thy neighbor" and "tend to the sick"... but I wouldn't want to ask the one-idea crowd to try and hold multiple thoughts at once. They're already too busy to talk because of their good work; we shan't bother them now.

George Bush promised "family values." George Bush had several long-running affairs. His son has declared his attempts to get back to the moral core of the country; this comes after several affairs, a drinking problem and a coke habit. Both led the country into wars; although the elder Bush made one of the most noble sacrifices in recent political history by raising taxes and setting the stage for the Clinton-era economic boom, neither one was exactly the highest moral being. Ronald Reagan? Absentee father and divorcee. Surprisingly, the last semi-moral right-winger might have been Nixon, although his morals crumbled under a haze of paranoia and power.

Responsibility is the key, and this is the one thing that everyone sensible -- right wing, left wing, moonbat and nutjob -- can agree on. If you don't take responsibility, it's your own damn fault. The world does what it does. People have been complaining about entertainment since the beginning of time, but it hasn't stopped some people from being good upright human beings. Not everyone. But enough to the point where we ain't ended the line of human beings just yet.

Yet the magic word "morals" draws the flocks in, no matter who is saying it. And that flock is parents who can't talk to their kids. Parents who let their kids watch TV from dawn to dusk and are shocked because the kids are rotting on the inside. Parents who don't check in, parents who don't nag, parents who don't make the slightest effort to teach their kids. Until these parents step up and take some responsibility for their own parenting and their own kids, they need to stop trying to take responsibility for the entire world.

Ah, sweet sweet laziness.

Anyway, my absolutely favorite thing about conservative arguments is their total devotion to short-term accomplishments. And the crown jewel of those arguments is the "Ronald Reagan won the Cold War" theorum. It goes something like this:

"Reagan knew Russia couldn't keep up, so he pushed them militarily to keep expanding and by the time he said 'Tear down that wall' it was all over. God Bless that great war hero, Mr. Reagan."

This argument is particularly useful now, because Bush gets the comparison of a foreign policy tough-guy (which God can only imagine how much he gets off on that). But a few small problems with that argument include the obvious fact that by 1980 the Russians (in retrospect, of course) were obviously on the verge of collapse already. Secondly, the U.S. policy on Russia had been set -- with the exception of the alliance in WWII -- by the Woodrow Wilson administration when it had sent troops in to try and help the "white" faction defeat the Communists in 1917. That policy of containment was apparent through FDR's treatment of Stalin at Malta, Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower's harassment of Russian airspace, the entire Korean and Vietnam era, and right up to Reagan.

But better yet, looking at the actions of Vladimir Putin, one must ask, what exactly did we win by "winning" the Cold War?

Just this past week, Putin has agreed to sell nuclear fuel to Iran so that the Iranians can get a nuclear power plant running. I often consider my fellow Americans to by insane and spittle-emitting xenophobic racists, but trust me: I ALSO have no real desire to see Iran with any sort of ability to build a nuclear weapon. Putin did this against the wishes of the Bush administration.

Putin has also been quietly cutting back democratic reforms in Russia. Although Russia has taken the proper cues for democracy from America (instead of faceless all-powerful corporations, the economy is mostly run by gun-toting gangsters... truly, a very small difference) but the government is still highly repressive. They do allow religion now, which is good enough for the God-and-gun crowd of America, so there aren't a lot of complaints at this point.

The threat of nuclear war has lessened, but with it comes the threat of proliferation since Russia has done very little to protect its old nuclear stocks and now are selling fuel to Iran. Who next, Syria, Cuba and Canada? How much money do you think one of those gangsters could fetch at an Al-Qaida auction for an old ICBM?

And this is winning: Our military still makes up an obscene part of our budget. Russia's common man is only slightly better off than he was under communism. Nuclear weapons aren't under Russian control -- we're not entirely sure where they are. And dissent is still going to get you in trouble. I'd like to say that's true only in Russia, but let's not forget The Land that Law Forgot in Gitmo...

In short, communism was defeated, but winning the Cold War does not seem to have made the world safer. If anything, there's more fear and paranoia now, because now those nukes could be anywhere.

Uh, hooray?

And since we live in a country where ideology is considered more important than intelligence, we're treated to the same refrain: We won, we won, we won, Reagan is the best.

That's great if we lived at peace. Or if Russia became a strong ally. Or even less dangerous than they were before. But I think it's fair to say none of those things are true. So did we really win anything?

Somewhere, I suspect Lenin might be smiling.