Republicans boldly appoint avowed conservatives to the Supremes. Namely, these guys: Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito. They belong to the right-wing Federalist Society. They hire right wingers as clerks and help them move up the ladder in the court system or corporate world. They have an ideology and a strategy to match.
Democratic Presidents timidly nominate moderates to the Supremes, who deny being even mildly liberal. They do not belong to the ACLU, and claim not to know anyone in the Lawyers Guild. They have no ideology, they are just broad minded.
Barry Goldwater summed that up: "Sometimes a broad mind means a flat head."
So, while it’s great to see a Latina join that stodgy club, she’s a former corporate lawyer and prosecutor with no populist inclinations. She will join the so-called "liberals," a la Souter.
“Liberal” is reduced to this: they will not allow prayer in the schools and will uphold Roe v Wade and affirmative action. I’m glad they do, but, in fact, so is corporate America glad. After all, CEO's have daughters who may need an abortion, and they rarely put monuments of the Ten Commandments in their corporate HQ.
Thus a liberal is not someone who stands up to corporate power, but one who dares to part ways with Rush Limbaugh.
A corporation is considered a "person" in this country. Corporations have "free speech rights," for example. Find that one in the US Constitution! Name one "liberal" potential nominee from Obama who will laugh at that nonsense as you and I do. Or cry, when the context is more real.
Well, I was thinking about this, and then I had a dream last night. What follows is a verbatim transcript of my dream...
I turned on NPR in the morning and heard:
"Today I am nominating a person who will bring a small bit of balance to the court. Not a corporate lawyer, but a people's lawyer. Not one who joins country clubs, but one who has picketed them. Not one from a corporate firm, but one from a public interest firm. Not one who believes that a polluting corporation enjoys "Constitutional rights," but one who believes that corporations need to be reined in.
"Today I nominate a man who knows that when the US Constitution was written, the drafters were concerned about checking the global reach of the King of England. And he knows that today the Queen of England has more tea bags than power, and he is concerned about checking the global reach of corporations.
"And so now, we will have one justice out of nine who stands on the side of the hard working people of this nation.
"Today I nominate Paul Alan Levy.
"And, on a lighter note, I've learned that Paul's friend Stosh Pulaski drove him to the Men's Wearhouse yesterday to get him a spiffy new outfit for this historic occasion."
And then I woke up to America.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Monday, May 19, 2008
California Gay Marriage...Is it Time for a New Idea?
The California Supreme Court says same-sex marriage is a human right. Woo-hoo, our rights actually might increase a notch.
That’s cause for celebration in this Patriot Act Decade, when our rights have been disappearing faster than polar bears. A friend from Scotland was recently denied re-entry to the USA, where he is legally quite gainfully employed, because several years ago he went scuba diving in the Red Sea. Did Homeland Security think that name meant it was a commie lake? No, they accurately detected that it’s located in the Middle East. You cannot swim underwater with Arabs on nearby shores and expect to work in the land of the free.
So I figured now at least two guys can tie the knot in Fresno. Then a California friend called, and he seemed less happy.
My astute friend – he lives in San Francisco, where everyone is either astute or gay and usually both – pointed out that six of the seven judges who made the ruling are Republicans.
Now the issue is not only headed for the California ballot, but for the national political spotlight in November.
So that got me thinking about the sacrament of marriage. I offer a new idea (if those are allowed) for the left: campaign for an end to state-sponsored marriage.
This has the advantage of being good policy and also throws the right wing gay-bashers off their game. And maybe we’ll win a few people over: that’s one element that the left often avoids, but what the hell, let’s go for it.
So, here’s the plan.
Marriage would henceforth be sanctified only by priests, imams, monks and sundry other consecrated ones. No more sacraments at city hall.
The state shall henceforth grant a civil union to any couple over the age of consent. This will cover such un-spiritual matters as pensions, health care, inheritance and form 1040.
We can point out that we’re saving holy marriage by getting activist judges and secular legislators out of the loop. In fact, if any judge so much as mentions marriage, we’ll have that sucker impeached, recalled or whatever pulls their judicial plug.
We can seek endorsements from bible thumpers of all stripes – from Frisco to Waco -- for the Holy Sanctified Marriage Act. Even the polygamists can get on board: marry as many consenting adults as your personal potentate prescribes.
The term win-win just leaps to mind.
That’s cause for celebration in this Patriot Act Decade, when our rights have been disappearing faster than polar bears. A friend from Scotland was recently denied re-entry to the USA, where he is legally quite gainfully employed, because several years ago he went scuba diving in the Red Sea. Did Homeland Security think that name meant it was a commie lake? No, they accurately detected that it’s located in the Middle East. You cannot swim underwater with Arabs on nearby shores and expect to work in the land of the free.
So I figured now at least two guys can tie the knot in Fresno. Then a California friend called, and he seemed less happy.
My astute friend – he lives in San Francisco, where everyone is either astute or gay and usually both – pointed out that six of the seven judges who made the ruling are Republicans.
Now the issue is not only headed for the California ballot, but for the national political spotlight in November.
So that got me thinking about the sacrament of marriage. I offer a new idea (if those are allowed) for the left: campaign for an end to state-sponsored marriage.
This has the advantage of being good policy and also throws the right wing gay-bashers off their game. And maybe we’ll win a few people over: that’s one element that the left often avoids, but what the hell, let’s go for it.
So, here’s the plan.
Marriage would henceforth be sanctified only by priests, imams, monks and sundry other consecrated ones. No more sacraments at city hall.
The state shall henceforth grant a civil union to any couple over the age of consent. This will cover such un-spiritual matters as pensions, health care, inheritance and form 1040.
We can point out that we’re saving holy marriage by getting activist judges and secular legislators out of the loop. In fact, if any judge so much as mentions marriage, we’ll have that sucker impeached, recalled or whatever pulls their judicial plug.
We can seek endorsements from bible thumpers of all stripes – from Frisco to Waco -- for the Holy Sanctified Marriage Act. Even the polygamists can get on board: marry as many consenting adults as your personal potentate prescribes.
The term win-win just leaps to mind.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Could America Go Smart?
Obama can’t bowl. We laugh. Hillary takes a shot and a beer. We laugh harder. It’s America, where Ivy League multi-millionaires play at being regular folks, but usually about as well as George Bush plays President.
Obama can win the city and split the burbs, but Clinton’s got the white working class. It’s macro-analyzed, micro-analyzed and re-analyzed.
But maybe they’re missing the real question: could America go smart?
Could smart become chic, and then waltz right in and displace dumb as the American political paradigm?
One defining characteristic of American politics is the love affair with dumb. It goes way back and way deep. What other country could boast a thriving party called the Know Nothings. That was like two centuries ago (but only one century old when I learned it in civics class). It was anti-immigrant -- some things never change.
It’s not just the right either, though surely a political culture of dumbness plays to the right. Remember, the original crusader for anti-evolutionism – another uniquely American dumbassity – was our greatest populist, William Jennings Bryan. Maybe it’s understandable: poor folks have been called dumb so long they just don’t trust smart.
Ronald Reagan, the most influential President of my long lifetime, could not distinguish the history of WW II from war movies. When he debated Carter, and Carter made a fool of him, he intoned "There you go again," a line that scored a knockout with Americans. Carter was buried in a landslide of dumb.
George Bush portrayed himself as a regular guy, and, incredibly, it worked. Out of 300 million people, I can’t think of one who better personifies being a child of privilege. Yet he successfully portrayed his opponents as elitists (well that wasn’t hard with Kerry, was it?). His country estate became a "ranch." He’s dumb and thus a bona fide regular American.
Bill Clinton, he’s smart. Yale and Oxford. But he played Joe Six-pack in the movie of American politics. Hillary – Radcliffe and Yale – tells us tales of grandpa teaching her to hunt. Hunt what? Cattle futures? She’s playing us for dumb, a tried and true strategy.
In other countries, politicians pretend to be smarter than they are. Must be really weird to be there! Imagine a debate in, say, France, where the French Reagan tries "there you go again" and the other Frenchie says, "Do you really think the French people will buy that crap?"
Once I was at a debate with the Prime Minister of Belize. His opponent was wearing flip-flops. The chairman of Blue Creek village told the Prime Minister his priorities were wrong. They both sounded smart. The nearest high school was a long bus ride away.
When Oscar Arias, or Mandela, or Palme, or Arafat won the Nobel Prize, that enhanced their reputation among their people. But Gore… if he had a chance at a comeback, that Nobel finished him off. There ain’t no bowling alleys in Norway. (Or is it Sweden, those two are too confusing to us Americans.)
Tipping Point?
Then comes along Obama. All this talk about Obamamania, Obamicans, etc, but what strikes me is that he isn’t talking dumb. Why hasn’t that finished him off?
They say he’s so eloquent. But maybe that means he playing smart. And maybe there’s a market for that now. A bigger market than the back seat of an 8-air bag Volvo.
I don’t ever listen to these politicians. I paid my dues to do-goodness and I just don’t have to suffer through that. But after the Obama race speech, a friend told me I had to check it out. So I read it on line. Very different. Not profound, not pungent, nowhere near a King speech. But it was smart. That was the stunner. So I went on line for other Obama speeches, and, sure enough, they were smart, too.
Then I started thinking about working people I know, and how many of them want smart leaders. Maybe there is some tipping point we’re near, where leaders will have to play smart. They’ll have to say they know more about the theory of evolution than the other candidate. ("Why, I just re-read the original Darwin last week!"). They’ll brag that they read Harvard studies proving that cutting taxes on the rich leads to the rich getting richer but nothing much useful to you and me.
They’ll claim that when they go bowling, between frames they study how to stop the spread of nuclear weapons.
I don’t know if it would change much. But at least I’d be less embarrassed about the whole thing.
Obama can win the city and split the burbs, but Clinton’s got the white working class. It’s macro-analyzed, micro-analyzed and re-analyzed.
But maybe they’re missing the real question: could America go smart?
Could smart become chic, and then waltz right in and displace dumb as the American political paradigm?
One defining characteristic of American politics is the love affair with dumb. It goes way back and way deep. What other country could boast a thriving party called the Know Nothings. That was like two centuries ago (but only one century old when I learned it in civics class). It was anti-immigrant -- some things never change.
It’s not just the right either, though surely a political culture of dumbness plays to the right. Remember, the original crusader for anti-evolutionism – another uniquely American dumbassity – was our greatest populist, William Jennings Bryan. Maybe it’s understandable: poor folks have been called dumb so long they just don’t trust smart.
Ronald Reagan, the most influential President of my long lifetime, could not distinguish the history of WW II from war movies. When he debated Carter, and Carter made a fool of him, he intoned "There you go again," a line that scored a knockout with Americans. Carter was buried in a landslide of dumb.
George Bush portrayed himself as a regular guy, and, incredibly, it worked. Out of 300 million people, I can’t think of one who better personifies being a child of privilege. Yet he successfully portrayed his opponents as elitists (well that wasn’t hard with Kerry, was it?). His country estate became a "ranch." He’s dumb and thus a bona fide regular American.
Bill Clinton, he’s smart. Yale and Oxford. But he played Joe Six-pack in the movie of American politics. Hillary – Radcliffe and Yale – tells us tales of grandpa teaching her to hunt. Hunt what? Cattle futures? She’s playing us for dumb, a tried and true strategy.
In other countries, politicians pretend to be smarter than they are. Must be really weird to be there! Imagine a debate in, say, France, where the French Reagan tries "there you go again" and the other Frenchie says, "Do you really think the French people will buy that crap?"
Once I was at a debate with the Prime Minister of Belize. His opponent was wearing flip-flops. The chairman of Blue Creek village told the Prime Minister his priorities were wrong. They both sounded smart. The nearest high school was a long bus ride away.
When Oscar Arias, or Mandela, or Palme, or Arafat won the Nobel Prize, that enhanced their reputation among their people. But Gore… if he had a chance at a comeback, that Nobel finished him off. There ain’t no bowling alleys in Norway. (Or is it Sweden, those two are too confusing to us Americans.)
Tipping Point?
Then comes along Obama. All this talk about Obamamania, Obamicans, etc, but what strikes me is that he isn’t talking dumb. Why hasn’t that finished him off?
They say he’s so eloquent. But maybe that means he playing smart. And maybe there’s a market for that now. A bigger market than the back seat of an 8-air bag Volvo.
I don’t ever listen to these politicians. I paid my dues to do-goodness and I just don’t have to suffer through that. But after the Obama race speech, a friend told me I had to check it out. So I read it on line. Very different. Not profound, not pungent, nowhere near a King speech. But it was smart. That was the stunner. So I went on line for other Obama speeches, and, sure enough, they were smart, too.
Then I started thinking about working people I know, and how many of them want smart leaders. Maybe there is some tipping point we’re near, where leaders will have to play smart. They’ll have to say they know more about the theory of evolution than the other candidate. ("Why, I just re-read the original Darwin last week!"). They’ll brag that they read Harvard studies proving that cutting taxes on the rich leads to the rich getting richer but nothing much useful to you and me.
They’ll claim that when they go bowling, between frames they study how to stop the spread of nuclear weapons.
I don’t know if it would change much. But at least I’d be less embarrassed about the whole thing.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Big Wally Comes to Town
Our very first Wal-Mart opened in Detroit. Well, not actually in Detroit, nothing opens there. But in the closest suburb, a straight shot down the street from our homestead.
So there I went. For research purposes only, mind you.
It’s big. I knew that, but now I’ve got the feel. Like I knew a steam locomotive was big, but then I saw one indoors at the transportation museum in Detroit, and it was …big. That was my first Wal-Mart impression, and, well, my biggest one.
In fact, I now suspect this is the key to Wal-Mart’s success. Be Bigger Than Everyone Else. Americans are all about big. Big cars. Big money. Big televisions. Big weapons.
It’s got a Subway (no, not public transportation, this is America). It’s got an optometrist (well, so does Sears, Wally.). It may have body piercing and motorcycle mufflers, too. I didn’t begin to explore the outer reaches.
I headed straight for my favorite stuff: food. I compared (apples-to-apples comparisons; in one case, literally) prices to my market, E&L. E&L was cheaper on all 10 comparisons. Bigger is not always cheaper.
I headed out of the fresh food, which must be Wally’s weak spot. There were case-lots of paper towels. I do have a basement, so this could be attractive. I had no basis to compare prices on those. Probably cheap, don’t you think?
A Wal-Mart associate was stocking jars of pickles. Staring at the pickle rack, I asked "I don’t see pickled okra, do you have it?" She offered a blank stare, then "I don’t know" and resumed stocking. Score one for Kroger.
I bought a jar of crunchy peanut butter for $2.39. The kind whose ingredients are peanuts, salt. Kroger has the same Smuckers but no crunchy. My Maggie is choosy. Wally scores a point.
Notice that my research turned participatory. I think it gave me a truer Wal-Mart Experience: immersion science.
I headed outta food, and into the vast expanses of baby strollers, tote bags, and giant beer coolers. I was fascinated with the size of some of those. They could be used in a mystery movie where the body is hidden in a beer cooler. With extra room for 2 cases of Bud Lite. Once again, I had no basis for price comparison. I suspect it’s all cheap. (Am I getting sucked into America’s vortex?)
I am seeking – this is all in the interest of science – an outdoor thermometer. I start testing the friendly associates on where I might find one. Two associates come back with blank stares. A third listlessly says "garden section" in a tone that suggests a wild guess. It does sound like a good one.
The garden associate, when asked, states (I am not making this up; the integrity of science is on the line.) "Did you check each aisle in this department?" I said "Is that what I should do?" The now-familiar blank stare locked on. (Do they program them to look like that trademark smiley face, only dumber?)
I’m getting shop-phobia. Which I suffer from, especially inside malls. I stay out of malls for this reason. My credit card balance is zero, also for this reason. So I head for the check-outs.
I’ve been watching the Wal-Mart ads on TV in preparation for this research. The ads show their vast expanse of check-out lines for your convenience.
Indeed there are many. But ¼ of them are open. The line takes 9 minutes. Wally is copy-catting Kroger: lotsa checkouts, few operating.
I’m safely out. But now I face the final act in the tale of Bigness. The parking lot appears to stretch from Dearborn to Arkansas. And I have forgotten where I parked. Maybe I’m not smart enough to shop there. I’m comfortable with that.
Goodbye, Wally.
So there I went. For research purposes only, mind you.
It’s big. I knew that, but now I’ve got the feel. Like I knew a steam locomotive was big, but then I saw one indoors at the transportation museum in Detroit, and it was …big. That was my first Wal-Mart impression, and, well, my biggest one.
In fact, I now suspect this is the key to Wal-Mart’s success. Be Bigger Than Everyone Else. Americans are all about big. Big cars. Big money. Big televisions. Big weapons.
It’s got a Subway (no, not public transportation, this is America). It’s got an optometrist (well, so does Sears, Wally.). It may have body piercing and motorcycle mufflers, too. I didn’t begin to explore the outer reaches.
I headed straight for my favorite stuff: food. I compared (apples-to-apples comparisons; in one case, literally) prices to my market, E&L. E&L was cheaper on all 10 comparisons. Bigger is not always cheaper.
I headed out of the fresh food, which must be Wally’s weak spot. There were case-lots of paper towels. I do have a basement, so this could be attractive. I had no basis to compare prices on those. Probably cheap, don’t you think?
A Wal-Mart associate was stocking jars of pickles. Staring at the pickle rack, I asked "I don’t see pickled okra, do you have it?" She offered a blank stare, then "I don’t know" and resumed stocking. Score one for Kroger.
I bought a jar of crunchy peanut butter for $2.39. The kind whose ingredients are peanuts, salt. Kroger has the same Smuckers but no crunchy. My Maggie is choosy. Wally scores a point.
Notice that my research turned participatory. I think it gave me a truer Wal-Mart Experience: immersion science.
I headed outta food, and into the vast expanses of baby strollers, tote bags, and giant beer coolers. I was fascinated with the size of some of those. They could be used in a mystery movie where the body is hidden in a beer cooler. With extra room for 2 cases of Bud Lite. Once again, I had no basis for price comparison. I suspect it’s all cheap. (Am I getting sucked into America’s vortex?)
I am seeking – this is all in the interest of science – an outdoor thermometer. I start testing the friendly associates on where I might find one. Two associates come back with blank stares. A third listlessly says "garden section" in a tone that suggests a wild guess. It does sound like a good one.
The garden associate, when asked, states (I am not making this up; the integrity of science is on the line.) "Did you check each aisle in this department?" I said "Is that what I should do?" The now-familiar blank stare locked on. (Do they program them to look like that trademark smiley face, only dumber?)
I’m getting shop-phobia. Which I suffer from, especially inside malls. I stay out of malls for this reason. My credit card balance is zero, also for this reason. So I head for the check-outs.
I’ve been watching the Wal-Mart ads on TV in preparation for this research. The ads show their vast expanse of check-out lines for your convenience.
Indeed there are many. But ¼ of them are open. The line takes 9 minutes. Wally is copy-catting Kroger: lotsa checkouts, few operating.
I’m safely out. But now I face the final act in the tale of Bigness. The parking lot appears to stretch from Dearborn to Arkansas. And I have forgotten where I parked. Maybe I’m not smart enough to shop there. I’m comfortable with that.
Goodbye, Wally.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Stosh Finds Common Ground with Bush
George Bush says people should shop for medical care as they do for deodorant or kosher pickles. One more bad idea from his feeble mind.
But under our present system, maybe he has half a point: the prices are hidden from the consumer. Remind me, why is that?
I thought about this yesterday, two months after my one-day trip to the hospital. In two months I had received only one bill; it was from the hospital, which seemed to assigned a portion of the bill to me in the most arbitrary way. And not a word from Blue Cross. This surprised this healthcare virgin; I thought my mail box would runneth over with paper.
So I called Blue Cross. The person on the line was not Nice. Maybe Nice was on vacation, and Crisp was filling in. Ms. Crisp seemed shocked that I would seek such private information as how BC determined my share of the cost. She actually stated "it's up to you" to figure that out. When I asked for help, Crisp admitted she could not figure it out either, and indeed it looked wrong to her. Incredibly, she managed to stay Crisp during this brief Admission Phase of our chat.
So she said she would ask a higher power to write to me "within 30-60 days" (The hospital is gonna be in a bad mood by then...up to 4 months from service, no payment from me. I kinda like that part.)
I'm wandering. Here's the point, if there is one...
I pressed on. "Where is the bill from the surgeon?" Crispy moved closer to Grouchy now. It was as if I had asked "What's your cup size?" How inappropriate. Finally, under gentle pressure, she rattled off some numbers. She ran through four names who got respectively $1900, $2800, and two got exactly $5000. (This was on top of the hospital's $21,000 and who knows what else.) Whoa there, Crispy. That last guy is the surgeon but the other three... just who are they? She then morphed directly to Ms.Snotty and s-l-o-w-l-y explained that in a hospital there are behind-the-scenes folks looking out for me, and I could never understand just what they might actually do.
I suggested it might be in BC's interest for customers to actually know who gets paid for what, and perhaps even question it, since BC is paying the majority of the money to these cats. She snapped back into Crisp persona and our time together came to an abrupt close.
Which left me wondering... maybe Bush has a point. As a NY Times piece cogently argued a week ago, a big factor in the medical cost difference between the USA and Europe is what the doctors rake in here. Post the chart. Let the sun shine in.
Ps. I investigated a little and found that the other $5000 went to the surgeon's partner. $5000 for each of them, for four hours. I think Gershwin said it: Nice work if you can get it.
But under our present system, maybe he has half a point: the prices are hidden from the consumer. Remind me, why is that?
I thought about this yesterday, two months after my one-day trip to the hospital. In two months I had received only one bill; it was from the hospital, which seemed to assigned a portion of the bill to me in the most arbitrary way. And not a word from Blue Cross. This surprised this healthcare virgin; I thought my mail box would runneth over with paper.
So I called Blue Cross. The person on the line was not Nice. Maybe Nice was on vacation, and Crisp was filling in. Ms. Crisp seemed shocked that I would seek such private information as how BC determined my share of the cost. She actually stated "it's up to you" to figure that out. When I asked for help, Crisp admitted she could not figure it out either, and indeed it looked wrong to her. Incredibly, she managed to stay Crisp during this brief Admission Phase of our chat.
So she said she would ask a higher power to write to me "within 30-60 days" (The hospital is gonna be in a bad mood by then...up to 4 months from service, no payment from me. I kinda like that part.)
I'm wandering. Here's the point, if there is one...
I pressed on. "Where is the bill from the surgeon?" Crispy moved closer to Grouchy now. It was as if I had asked "What's your cup size?" How inappropriate. Finally, under gentle pressure, she rattled off some numbers. She ran through four names who got respectively $1900, $2800, and two got exactly $5000. (This was on top of the hospital's $21,000 and who knows what else.) Whoa there, Crispy. That last guy is the surgeon but the other three... just who are they? She then morphed directly to Ms.Snotty and s-l-o-w-l-y explained that in a hospital there are behind-the-scenes folks looking out for me, and I could never understand just what they might actually do.
I suggested it might be in BC's interest for customers to actually know who gets paid for what, and perhaps even question it, since BC is paying the majority of the money to these cats. She snapped back into Crisp persona and our time together came to an abrupt close.
Which left me wondering... maybe Bush has a point. As a NY Times piece cogently argued a week ago, a big factor in the medical cost difference between the USA and Europe is what the doctors rake in here. Post the chart. Let the sun shine in.
Ps. I investigated a little and found that the other $5000 went to the surgeon's partner. $5000 for each of them, for four hours. I think Gershwin said it: Nice work if you can get it.
Monday, July 30, 2007
Stosh Battles Media Bias
The Detroit Free Press Sunday front page screams the news that Michigan has a higher percentage of millionaires than America. Woo-hoo, we are in the pink after all.
I snatch the paper from Maggie. I gotta see this. Surely there will be charts and graphs that I crave with my coffee.
Nope. No charts, no graphs, not even a fun-fact except that 3% of USA households have assets over $1 million but 4% of Michigan households do. Much ink over nuthin.'
But I read on. And on. Through the huge inside continued. It turns out, the article is actually about Anyone Can be a Millionaire, Through Hard Work. This is not on Border's out-sized Self Help Shelf, but the front page lead of Michigan's big paper. One guy in Bloomfield Hills made it by the time he was 26, working "90 hours a week." The careful reader notes that his name sounds familiar; turns out that his pop owns a huge car dealership out in the burbs somewhere.
Hmm. A millionaire begets a millionaire. Maybe that could be news. So I move my coffee to the computer and pen a helpful suggestion.
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2007 10:13 AMTo: Tompor, SusanSubject: Millionaires
Ms. Tompor,
I read your millionaire piece with interest. Interesting that 3% of USA households have $1 mil or better in assets, but 4% in Michigan.
I have a critique to offer, which leads to a suggestion for another piece.
In a long article, you have only one clause with a clue on the #1 reason for the growth in the number of millionaires ("wealthy families passing along their money to children and grandchildren...")
I would suggest that most of those millionaires got there by that method, and fewer by the means you indicate in the article: hard work.
They inherit money from parents and grandparents; working folks often instead financially take care of parents or grandparents. Big difference.
Long before inheritance time, they also have trusts and gifts to put their kids thru college; free down payments on a house as a nice wedding gift to avoid any debt; same for cars, private schools for the kids, smooth sailing thru college and law school, money passed along if they get into some difficultly or have an illness, you name it. Working folks dont often have those benefits.
And this doesnt even get to the connections that wealth brings, connections that bring more wealth.
As you indicate, 500 GM management people have $1 mil or better in just their 401(k), while 5 hourly workers do. Interesting ratio. How many of those management folks got up that high simply by "hard work" and how many came from well-to-do families?
Punchline: I think it would be interesting to do a piece on this factor of wealth-thru-inheritance. With stats on what percentage of millionaires got the bulk of their wealth by such transfers. Interesting, and informative, on such issues as the inheritance tax debate. If most rich people worked hard 90 hrs a week collecting pop bottles to get there, then the inheritance tax may seem unfair. If most are just lucky-by-birth, even if wonderful folks -- though there are plenty like Paris Hilton -- then the inheritance tax looks a lot different.
I hope this is of interest.
Stosh Pulaski
Detroit
And I got this response:
Thanks for your note. I appreciate your comments.
Susan
I snatch the paper from Maggie. I gotta see this. Surely there will be charts and graphs that I crave with my coffee.
Nope. No charts, no graphs, not even a fun-fact except that 3% of USA households have assets over $1 million but 4% of Michigan households do. Much ink over nuthin.'
But I read on. And on. Through the huge inside continued. It turns out, the article is actually about Anyone Can be a Millionaire, Through Hard Work. This is not on Border's out-sized Self Help Shelf, but the front page lead of Michigan's big paper. One guy in Bloomfield Hills made it by the time he was 26, working "90 hours a week." The careful reader notes that his name sounds familiar; turns out that his pop owns a huge car dealership out in the burbs somewhere.
Hmm. A millionaire begets a millionaire. Maybe that could be news. So I move my coffee to the computer and pen a helpful suggestion.
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2007 10:13 AMTo: Tompor, SusanSubject: Millionaires
Ms. Tompor,
I read your millionaire piece with interest. Interesting that 3% of USA households have $1 mil or better in assets, but 4% in Michigan.
I have a critique to offer, which leads to a suggestion for another piece.
In a long article, you have only one clause with a clue on the #1 reason for the growth in the number of millionaires ("wealthy families passing along their money to children and grandchildren...")
I would suggest that most of those millionaires got there by that method, and fewer by the means you indicate in the article: hard work.
They inherit money from parents and grandparents; working folks often instead financially take care of parents or grandparents. Big difference.
Long before inheritance time, they also have trusts and gifts to put their kids thru college; free down payments on a house as a nice wedding gift to avoid any debt; same for cars, private schools for the kids, smooth sailing thru college and law school, money passed along if they get into some difficultly or have an illness, you name it. Working folks dont often have those benefits.
And this doesnt even get to the connections that wealth brings, connections that bring more wealth.
As you indicate, 500 GM management people have $1 mil or better in just their 401(k), while 5 hourly workers do. Interesting ratio. How many of those management folks got up that high simply by "hard work" and how many came from well-to-do families?
Punchline: I think it would be interesting to do a piece on this factor of wealth-thru-inheritance. With stats on what percentage of millionaires got the bulk of their wealth by such transfers. Interesting, and informative, on such issues as the inheritance tax debate. If most rich people worked hard 90 hrs a week collecting pop bottles to get there, then the inheritance tax may seem unfair. If most are just lucky-by-birth, even if wonderful folks -- though there are plenty like Paris Hilton -- then the inheritance tax looks a lot different.
I hope this is of interest.
Stosh Pulaski
Detroit
And I got this response:
Thanks for your note. I appreciate your comments.
Susan
Thursday, July 5, 2007
My Very Own Sicko
If I made a movie about American healthcare, I would not make France the positive example. Too alienating to the American mainstream. Not only did they go to France, but then the director squished his fat self into a teeny-weeny frogmobile to head out on a "house call" (Americans do not want doctors coming to their house; they barely let their neighbors come there.)
And I would think twice before having one of my stars mention that some American doctors want five fancy cars. Too alienating to the middle class left; that's my core audience.
Speaking of stars, would I make the film's political guru a Labor Party has-been, who speaks in that stiff British accent we love to mock? Don't think so.
And for chrissake the last frigging thing I would ever do is put Cuba in the damn thing. What was he thinking?!
That's what I would do. A clean case, straightforward, on the mark. No distractions.
No one would come to see it. Weekend gross would be exactly zero. My friends would glumly accept a free DVD and tell me it was good, the way you tell your mom her meatloaf is good.
This is why I do leaflets and Mike Moore does films. They are tightly scripted for sure, but they veer off course. I suspect that the mass demo scenes in France (no way would those get in my movie) were actually conceived by the unscripted remarks of one of the interviewees.
I think the Canada-England-France-Cuba odyssey made the film. The first half of personal stories of American medical evils, that part was good. But some seemed over the top. Like a woman's policy was cancelled after the fact, sticking her with five-figure bills, because she previously failed to disclose she had a yeast infection. (I have a five-figure medical bill lying around here somewhere, and I am not fearing that Blue Cross will say I failed to disclose my childhood measles. Then again, perhaps I should be.) The personal stuff was good, but the case for every-other-country-does-it-better, in its Moore-ish trek and screwball manner, made the movie. Yes, including the wacky, inappropriate Cuba ending.
It made the case for socialized medicine in a real way, without charts and graphs.
So the Nation review (interesting, and positive to be sure) says the Cuba part spoiled the movie, by turning off all the anti-commies. I'm giving that a thumbs down. It makes me realize that the only thing more boring than my movie would be one made by the editorial board of the Nation. Even the foundation that gave them the grant wouldn't watch that puppy.
$4.6 million the first weekend. I dont know if that is on track with Fahrenheit or not. Hope so. It's his most important film yet.
And I would think twice before having one of my stars mention that some American doctors want five fancy cars. Too alienating to the middle class left; that's my core audience.
Speaking of stars, would I make the film's political guru a Labor Party has-been, who speaks in that stiff British accent we love to mock? Don't think so.
And for chrissake the last frigging thing I would ever do is put Cuba in the damn thing. What was he thinking?!
That's what I would do. A clean case, straightforward, on the mark. No distractions.
No one would come to see it. Weekend gross would be exactly zero. My friends would glumly accept a free DVD and tell me it was good, the way you tell your mom her meatloaf is good.
This is why I do leaflets and Mike Moore does films. They are tightly scripted for sure, but they veer off course. I suspect that the mass demo scenes in France (no way would those get in my movie) were actually conceived by the unscripted remarks of one of the interviewees.
I think the Canada-England-France-Cuba odyssey made the film. The first half of personal stories of American medical evils, that part was good. But some seemed over the top. Like a woman's policy was cancelled after the fact, sticking her with five-figure bills, because she previously failed to disclose she had a yeast infection. (I have a five-figure medical bill lying around here somewhere, and I am not fearing that Blue Cross will say I failed to disclose my childhood measles. Then again, perhaps I should be.) The personal stuff was good, but the case for every-other-country-does-it-better, in its Moore-ish trek and screwball manner, made the movie. Yes, including the wacky, inappropriate Cuba ending.
It made the case for socialized medicine in a real way, without charts and graphs.
So the Nation review (interesting, and positive to be sure) says the Cuba part spoiled the movie, by turning off all the anti-commies. I'm giving that a thumbs down. It makes me realize that the only thing more boring than my movie would be one made by the editorial board of the Nation. Even the foundation that gave them the grant wouldn't watch that puppy.
$4.6 million the first weekend. I dont know if that is on track with Fahrenheit or not. Hope so. It's his most important film yet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)