An Inconvenient Solution

I figured out long ago how to combat this shit.

Bank of America’s new debit card fee, which also has been tested or implemented by other banks, joins a long and growing list of similar charges that consumers now encounter in the course of daily life. Among them: airline baggage fees, hotel Internet fees, “convenience charges” for concert and sporting tickets, ATM fees, bank teller fees, paper statement fees, fees hidden in phone and cable bills, taxicab fuel surcharges and exorbitant shipping and handling costs.

I haven't flown on a plane in probably eight years. And yes, that has been inconvenient at times.

I'm trying to remember if I've even been to a big concert since 2005 or 2006. I don't think I have. And I don't miss it. I might make an exception if RUSH comes around again, or I might not.

I switched in a credit union in 1991.

The ATM only gets used in an emergency, and only when the cost of the fee is about the same as fuel costs to make a special trip to the credit union to withdraw cash.

I haven't quite figured out a work-around for the fees tacked on to the phone bill. They have us bent over reach for the soap on that one.

Shipping & handling? Who pays that shit? Even my 300-pound bed didn't have S&H tacked on. (Built-in tho the base price? Yeah, sure, because in this world, nothing is really free.)

I Can Do This Here

No Facebook needed.

Target Practice

We got another lesson on how our country and our politics work, this time from Target.

A campaign contribution to a well-known anti-gay politician in Minnesota has become a rather large public relations nightmare for Target CEO Gregg Steinhafel--and the store now faces boycotts and backlash from the gay community.

Target's Chief Executive Steinhafel said gay employees have been concerned about the money helping state Rep. Tom Emmer, who opposes gay marriage. Target gave $150,000 to MN Forward, a group staffed by former insiders from outgoing Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty's administration. MN Forward is running TV ads supporting Emmer.

The Associated Press reports that Emmer is a fiery conservative who lauds Arizona's strict approach to illegal immigration, once advocated chemical castration for sex offenders and wants to lower taxes. His profile contrasts with Target's moderate image in Minnesota, where the company is known for donating to public school programs, food pantries and the annual Twin Cities Gay Pride Festival.

Following the money trail, the Minnesota Independent has also linked Emmer to a Minnesota Christian "punk-rock ministry" that supports the killing of gays and lesbians.

It would be easy enough for me to get up here on my pulpit and say I'm going to boycott Target for as long as it takes. Honestly, I feel that would be somewhat misleading. Not because I would secretly continue to shop there and none of you would know anyway (except my local readers who might actually bump into me there). It's because I already don't shop at Target, even when I thought they were the good guys!

I may go in a Target once a year, if even that often. So it's not at all a stretch on my part to add Target to the personal boycott list which includes Wal-Mart, Exxon Mobile, and others. (And again, to be honest, I've bought something at Wal-Mart within the past 3 years -- I had a gift card from someone.)

The fact of the matter is this: Corporations are going to do what is best for them first. Even if it seems they are stabbing a certain group in the back. They can just make an excuse, say "sorry," and then throw a wad of cash at a gay pride event, and everything will be OK again. In this case, they don't say "sorry." But Target's CEO Gregg Steinhafel did have an excuse (bold emphasis mine):

"We rarely endorse all advocated positions of the organizations or candidates we support, and we do not have a political or social agenda," Steinhafel wrote. "As you know, Target has a history of supporting organizations and candidates, on both sides of the aisle, who seek to advance policies aligned with our business objectives, such as job creation and economic growth...Let me be very clear, Target's support of the GLBT community is unwavering, and inclusiveness remains a core value of our company."

Yeah. Their support may be "unwavering," but you can bet your Queer ass it will get trumped every time by the "business objectives" of The Corporation. Because that's how shit works.

Money from Target's top executives has gone mainly to Republicans. Former Chief Executive Officer Robert Ulrich, who retired last year, gave $617,000 during his time as Target's leader, most of it to the state GOP. Current Chief Executive Gregg Steinhafel has donated about $25,000, almost exclusively to Republican candidates and causes, including at least $1,000 to Michele Bachmann's "Victory Committee."

We need to get it through our heads that we can't have it both ways either. Frankly, Target can take their support of the Twin Cities Gay Pride Festival and whatever other "unwavering" support they provide, and shove it up their proverbial ass.

Corporations are about getting power and making profits for their boards of directors and their stockholders. There's no better way of doing that than making sure you have a few politicians on a leash who will carry on with passing legislation to achieve that objective.

If we want to get back at them, the best way of doing so is to elect politicians who care more about us, the people, than them, the corporations and big business. That would be a far greater victory than waging some boycott whereby a tiny fraction of their customer base suddenly finds another outlet for consumption.

I'm not suggesting we don't boycott. By all means, knock yourselves out. I won't be going to Target. But the sad truth remains: even if Target suddenly stopped the practice of donating money to the most disgusting political candidates, the other corporations -- the ones responsible for the manufacture and marketing of the products we buy -- are engaging in exactly the same reprehensible tactics.

This will not stop until we stop it.

A Fine Choice of Wood Screws

As you can tell from my posts lately, I'm very disillusioned with the direction our country is going and with 62% of Americans agreeing with me, I'm in the majority...except that I seriously doubt we'd agree on the solutions.

Ever since Obama started pushing health care reform and all those on the rabid right started waving tea bags and absurd socialism signs, I've been having some fantasies. If only that man could wave that magic wand and instantly create some more socialism, above and beyond what we've already got (and upon which, the rabid right is heavily dependent).

I'm not as anti-capitalism and free enterprise as my anger lately would indicate. I rather like having a choice when it comes to the food I put in my mouth and the products I use to clean my teeth and hair. Pickles come to mind. Even when it comes to roasted peanuts, I swear I can tell a difference between the Emerald label and my local HEB label. I prefer the local HEB label, and for all I know they come off the same assembly line. I do, however, have major issues with corporate giants gobbling up small producers under their umbrella, all in the name of market share, corporate profits, and pleasing their shareholders.

I think we would could stand to benefit from breaking a few old habits and doing some taste tests and perhaps we could start to wean ourselves away from branded items owned by the likes of P&G, Kraft, PepsiCo, Unilever, and others that are "too big to fail." You know, the shit you think is the best only because you've seen it advertised on television six thousand times vs. the store brand which might cost 20% less but you've never seen it advertised, and therefore it doesn't have that cache of a major corporate label behind it.

As much as I love having choices, there are clearly situations where I have them and honestly don't give a shit. I'm not sure I need 35 different olive oil choices, but since it is a food item, I sure wouldn't want to deprive another person of their personal joy. And besides, some of those labels are small producers, not corporate behemoths, and we need more of those.

When was the last time you went to buy nails at Home Depot and were confronted with a choice between 6 or 7 different manufacturers? And did that lack of selection bother you? Nails are important, as are wood screws. They kinda sorta hold our houses together. But you don't see ads in magazines, or on TV, for either nails or wood screws. And what's out there must be pretty damn good because I've never taken either purchase back for a refund, or driven around to see if Ace sells the same brand as Home Depot. Nor has my house caved in on me. Or the last house, for that matter. Most of us don't much care, nor should we. If it's a quality product, we're happy. If it's not, word will soon spread and another manufacturer will step in to fill the gap.

Another area where I honestly could care less is in the fuel industry. I think we'd be better off if the state owned oil & gas production in the country. Aside from when I was young and using my dad's Conoco credit card, I've never sought out a particular brand of fuel. I've used it all: Exxon/Mobile (before the gay boycott thing started), Texaco, Chevron, BP, Phillips 66, Valero, you name it, I've used it. And you know what? Despite all the pissing contests between them with boasts of Techron, and other bullshit, I can't tell a difference, and I drive a performance sports sedan. I've driven a Honda Civic and I've driven a beat up Toyota Corolla. And not once have I ever said, "Ummm, I'm running on empty but I'm going to pass on that Texaco because there's a Chevron six miles up the road and my baby is jonesin' for some Techron."

I do not care what I put in my car. Call it Amerigo, make it a state-owned monopoly, and you won't get anything but a loud cheer from me. The wasted money on advertising, the corporate executives and shareholders of one fuel company trying to gain market share over another, the mergers and acquisitions in an effort to be numero uno, would all disappear. And good riddance to it. If my car runs, I'm happy. And I think it's safe to say, after the BP disaster, not only do we need to move away from that source sooner rather than later, their interests in alternatives are purely self-serving.

Another area I wouldn't be the least bit sorry to see disappear is the competition in the cell phone arena. Good fucking grief! I remember when I came back from London in 1984 and suddenly the telecommunications industry had been deregulated. I needed to call my parents from a pay phone and had to make a choice of which corporate carrier was going to handle my long-distance call. I didn't give a flying fuck then, and I sure as shit don't give a flying fuck now. "You're using Sprint? Uggh, dude, AT&T is the only way to go...more bars in more places you know?"

Fuck that noise. I have AT&T on my cell phones here in Austin. I keep it because I have my mother on my plan and she lives in southeast Arkansas. I used to have Virgin Mobile and on a trip to my mom's back about 8 or 9 years ago, I didn't have phone service for like 500 miles, including the entire time I was at her house.

Sheldon took his phone to North Dakota this month and had spotty service at best. Maybe Verizon would be better up there. But maybe down here in this valley where we live, Verizon wouldn't work at all, and maybe at my mom's house it would be the best of all. Who knows and who cares, and who wants to spend the time and money trying to figure out which provider is going to handle you best in all the places you need to visit.

Honestly, when I'm on the phone with someone, not once have I ever been able to figure out whether they are using Sprint, Verizon, AT&T or whatever. It doesn't matter! What we want is good service, good bars, and access across the nation. And maybe Canada. The state can seize that industry for all I care, invest in one universal comprehensive area of coverage, we're all on the same network, all one big Amerizon family plan. Easy. Less choices to stress about. Less advertising and competition and pissing contests and unhappy shareholders and executives shitting their britches over market share after dropping from #2 to #3.

And let's throw the banking industry in here while we're at it. Give me one national bank owned by the government with decent interest rates and tellers who are happy because they are paid well since they aren't competing with shareholders demanding dividends and rising stock prices, and have free government health care. Better yet, give me that option and the option to stay with my credit union. Credit unions vs. a national state-owned bank. Fair enough. Stop the gouging with check fees and ATM fees. A check is a check and it moves through the system with ease regardless of whether it's a Chase, Bank of America, or Wells Fargo check. At the very least, regulate the banks, break the behemoths up into regional banks.

I could live without a choice of airlines as well. But then I never fly so I'll spare you my diatribe on that industry. If I needed to fly from Austin to Little Rock, I'd be stopping in either Dallas or Houston regardless of whether I chose Delta, Continental, American, or Southwest, and the fares and taxes are all about the same, so why do I care? It's competitive clutter. Take some of those profits and bonuses going to executives and share it with the underpaid pilots and stewards! How 'bout that?

In my utopian dreamworld of the Evil Socialist Obama, I would drool at the prospect of eliminating the corporations that control our television, radio and newspapers. Allowing corporate conglomerates to monopolize the local media was one of the biggest mistakes ever perpetrated upon an ignorant populace. Why did we stand for this? Why does Clear Channel, based in San Antonio, need to own six radio stations in Memphis and another 850 stations elsewhere? (They also own six stations in the small market of Bismarck, North Dakota!) Oh, stupid me: money for executives and shareholders, and the ease of production-line programming so they can inflict the same stinking pile of overplayed songs on EVERYBODY. Sorry, I took a momentary leave of my senses. Who cares what people in Bismarck or Memphis want to hear? Feed them what they think they need and they'll never know the difference. Most of them are too young to remember real rebel radio anyway. You know, stations with DJs who could get a wild hare up their ass and decide to play Thick as a Brick in its entirety. That was back when radio was actually exciting and unpredictable.

I just get so annoyed with the ridiculous portrayals by the right of President Obama and his "road to socialism." I could show them what a real socialist looks like.

[Insert Descriptive Post Title Here]

A long-time blog buddy (yes, four years is a long time in blogworld!) and Facebook friend took issue with my use of the word "slavery" in yesterday's post title. This morning he wrote in a Facebook message:

Sorry, it doesn't work even as hyperbole. It's an absurd word choice, and it makes me cranky as hell when someone uses it in an anti-corporatist rant. There are many things wrong with our society and its relationship to corporations, but we are all quite free to choose to live differently.

True, it wasn't a great choice of words, particularly if you interpret it literally in the context of American history. We aren't literally owned and sold like chattel at an auction. We still have our constitutional rights, more or less. We are free to pack up and move where we want, provided we have the means, and to pursue an education and any employment for which we are qualified.

However, I was at a loss for words in attempting to convey my rage at the level of influence held by corporations, and I still struggle to find a better word. Beholden? Nah, definitely not strong enough and still conveys some of that slavery essence. And I certainly didn't want to venture into deeper waters by suggesting that we are being raped by corporations, or resorting to disturbing visuals and crass bluntness by saying corporations are fucking us up the ass. I mean, come on! This is a quality, family blog!

Yes, we are all "free to choose to live differently" which differentiates the situation from actual slavery. And therein lies the problem, and I alluded to this in yesterday's post, that "we" aren't making that choice, either due to ignorance, or indifference. A whole bunch of us seem ok with the invasive corporate cancer, preferring instead to whine about it, and blaming our political leaders while clinging to the two-party pendulum as it swings back and forth, gathering millions of corporate dollars along the way which, ironically, we are helping fund each time we choose to do a business transaction with them.

We are free to choose to take corporate power away by making a personal decision to buy local and support small businesses. Absolutely true, but not a very realistic solution on which to hang a hat. That relies on trusting our fellow Americans, at least 80% of them in order to have a loud and meaningful impact, to be astute and make major changes in their purchasing habits. At least those fortunate enough to live in an area where there are choices, and have the ways and the means to do so, have that possibility.

In the thousands of small towns which have been decimated by the presence of Wal-Mart, the choices are extremely limited.

We are also free to throw our support behind any candidate and any political party we choose. Sounds good in theory but the best possible scenario never seems to pan out. Special interest groups with corporate funding can and do toss enough money behind their preferred candidate to drown out any alternatives. And why anyone would decide to vote for candidate A vs. candidate B based on a 30-second radio or television advertisement is beyond my comprehension, but it happens.

Despite all this freedom, and the power we have to radically change our politics, it's rather hard to accomplish when we can't even manage to get 40% of registered voters to turn out in mid-term elections, and a 55% turnout in presidential elections is considered a pretty good year, not that it matters if all those extra voters will vote no differently than the ones who bother to show up routinely.

Our energy policy and dependence on oil is another good example. To say we are slaves to oil might not be true either. We are free to break away from that dependence. Some of us take steps to reduce our consumption, others are able but choose not to, and another segment of society simply cannot do it for financial reasons.

This is precisely why we need government to devise a plan which inflicts pain and cost (yes, there is going to be some of both, so get ready) as fairly as possible in reaching the desired outcome of reduced dependence in the short-term, and green replacements in the long-term. This is not something we can sit around and wait on the private sector to do, nor does it make any sense to have individual states working independently of one another in this endeavor.

Call it what you wish, but we are under an oppressive thumb with the objective being to squeeze us dry to benefit the obscenely wealthy, and some of us are, strangely enough, shaking our pom-poms in fervent support for those groups.

***

(Off-topic blog note: The Echo comment system is misbehaving badly. FYI.)
***

We Are All Slaves to Corporations

Stop me if you've heard this one before.

For the last few days I've been in one of my pessimistic dark blue funks which have me just wanting to give the hell up on just about everything. Clearly, I'd be better off if I'd just stop watching Michael Moore films because they definitely trigger these feelings of despair. However you may critique his work, his delivery, his attempts to make a citizen's arrest at AIG, or whatever, the bottom line is that he is correct in identifying a huge problem we have in this country which ultimately will lead to our downfall. And if you disagree with that, well, you might be part of the huge problem we have.

I suppose it's very easy for most of us to ignore what's going on, and just ride the awesome wave of life, getting our gravy from whatever work we can find, buying fun shit to distract us, and just observing passively all the things going wrong here, perhaps hoping someone will fix it eventually, and hoping it never directly impacts us in a negative way.

Sometimes I desperately wish I could just turn off and ignore.

I'm at the point where I don't even want to write about politics, whether it's a politician talking out of both sides of their mouth, a Supreme Court ruling, or even a little piece of positive news, rare as that is these days.

As I sit here watching President Obama's approval rating dropping like a stone from the level of 15 months ago, I keep wondering what will happen in the 2010 mid-terms and in the 2012 election. And then I see a poll such as this one, and I simply get bewildered.

Nine in 10 Americans -- including a majority of Republicans, Democrats and independents alike -- think U.S. energy policy either needs fundamental changes or to be completely rebuilt, a new CBS/ New York Times poll shows.

Just 6 percent think only minor changes are needed to the nation's energy policy, according to the poll, conducted June 16 - June 20.

That sounds like good news, right? Isn't this what most of us wanted in the 2008 election, change? The kind of fundamental wholesale changes necessary to get us back on a sound track, and even completely rebuilding what is clearly broken. And it's not just energy policy. Most of us who voted for Obama expected that, as well as a repeal of DADT, the enactment of a strong ENDA bill, an exit from two reprehensible wars, closing Guantanamo, campaign finance reform, comprehensive health care reform including a public option, etc. I could go on but I think you get my point.

Had Barack Obama's campaign slogan been "incremental change you can believe in," I doubt there would have been as much hoopla surrounding his candidacy. "Hope" only goes so far...about as far as praying for campaign finance reform. Go ahead; knock yourselves out, but it's not going to change a damn thing until we change. And "we" don't seem to want to change. I mean, think about it. Obama supporters wanted all this change, and we didn't get it, and now there's a real chance Republicans are going to pick up a few dozen seats in Congress come November. I'm not going to write-off the White House to them yet, but you know damn well it's a possibility in 2012.

This really isn't a problem per se with Obama, or any other elected official. This is a problem with the American people and our expectations, coupled with an ignorance of how politics works, and who really has their grimy little paws on the strings of this absurd puppet show.

Campaigns and all their fancy slogans are nothing more than elaborate advertising campaigns and we are all too easily seduced by the promises of whiter whites, crispier chicken parts, easier housecleaning, and more bars with fewer dropped calls. The reality is that someone is usually taking us for a ride, and we're paying their expenses. Maybe we should just sell naming rights to the White House and all the monuments in DC to the highest bidding corporation and be done with it.

But back to that CBS poll I linked to earlier. Here's our other problem, and until we can come to terms with it, we are never going to experience the kind of change we expect and demand.

Moreover, nearly half of Americans -- 45 percent -- would support an increased tax on gasoline to support the exploration of renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power. But most people -- 51 percent -- oppose such a tax.

So, 51% of us want all this change, but we think it needs to come without a price and without any effort on our part. A majority of us -- slim as it is -- don't want the inconvenience which is often necessary for progress. I can't help but wonder if these are the people who want all taxes removed from fuel and everything else.

Go ahead, drive your cars with untaxed fuel until the roads and bridges start to crumble. I don't want to hear your complaints when a bridge falls into a river. I don't want to hear a peep from you when you hit a pothole and you spill hot Starbucks on your crotch. Eventually, a corporately-managed toll road will come to your rescue. Enjoy your ride.

And I'm going to stop wasting my time on hope until that other half gets their fucking shit together.

To those of you who voted for "hope" and "change" and are dissatisfied right now with the direction of the country, and you think swinging back to the Republican Party is going to make it all better, you either have a short memory or you're incredibly stupid naive, or both. Stop believing in slogans. Life is more complicated than that and requires a hell of a lot more effort to find the truth. And when you find the truth, you ain't gonna like it very much because the system is not going to be fixed by putting an X next to a name in a voting booth or on an absentee ballot; it's going to take an uncomfortable revolution to fix it. And frankly, I'm not sure when 51% of us are going to have the cojones for it.