Hollywood's "Left Wing" Agenda (spoiler if you are going to see Night at the Museum 3)

I am terribly fascinated by all the hype that the there is a left bias in Hollywood and the main stream media.  Perhaps, I have spent too much time reading Manufacturing Consent, but it seems to me that there is a corporate agenda at work which is more right than left.

We almost never go to the movies, choosing more often to watch older movies and shows (particularly British mystery shows as they are more cerebral and less sensational) once they have gotten to some of the streaming services, but some extended family members wanted to go.  It had been so long that I had forgotten why I don't like going, but then the full ten minutes of commercials happened.  They were loud and very conformist in the sense that they encouraged you to go to more movies presumably so you would be able to talk about them with your friends and fit in.  They also seemed over the top in terms of the shock and action value presumably so you think you deserve more excitement than your boring life and strive to consume more.

After the ten minutes, it was safe right?  Not exactly.  I love that the security guard main character has such a magical life.  To me it is synonymous with the rich inner life of security guards I know fueled by the freedom often to read on the job and discuss important topics with peers  (they need to be watchful, but aren't busy the way many jobs are).  Even with the extraordinary magic and the responsibility that went with it, the writers told us his life was less than par because he didn't have a job requiring college.  There was the whole conflict with the son over college as well as the awful ending where his next step was to get a degree and become a teacher.  Do the writers know how many degreed, in-debt and unemployed teachers there are in Buffalo that end up working as aides or nannies if they are lucky.

The message is clear and multifaceted.  You are only worth something if you have the capacity to consume at high levels.  You aren't a real human adult without a degree is another message even though it often comes with high debt loads and doesn't guarantee a better job.  It is permitted nowadays and expected to look down on those in certain kinds of professions despite the major structural problems with the huge disparity of wealth in the U.S.  One's whole value is determined in one's ability to please those that hire people.  This wouldn't be unfair if all those that worked hard received just income and opportunity as occurred more often fifty or sixty years ago.  The message is you can control what happens to you and that the system is fair and that it is one's own fault if you don't make it.  Don't question the corporate system, it is fair!!!

My husband's job as a security guard allows him much freedom in terms of how his mental time is occupied and the low levels of stress allow him to concentrate on our family life more fully as well as managing our home which is partially a business as it includes a rental unit.  Still, there are people in our lives that look down on us for our simple life despite its necessity for my health and its better situation for our kids.  These same people speak highly of others who have high level fancy careers despite, in some cases, having situations that are fundamentally complicated by the need for more income to consume more.  How come no one looks down on the two high earners with their kids in daycare or with a nanny?  Once you have one high earner, is it fair to the kids to leave them most of the day to chase more money even if one "loves" their job or can "do more" for them.  I am not sure I, myself, think it is wrong, but it is irritating that fewer people question it than the number of people who look down on security guards (or wait staff, or cashiers, or you get the idea).

I wish people would understand that the rich people are laughing all the way to the bank and that it isn't the poor people who are to blame.  The more people away from home in the workforce the more wages get bid down.  It is supply and demand.  Since there is only so much paid work out there, few people question the morality of working when you don't need to just to be socially acceptable, rather news and movies have convinced most of us that it is those poor people who aren't working hard enough are the problem rather than look up and see how much has been hoarded outside our reach.  It is incredibly stupid when the bottom 90% of us families only have 25% of the wealth.  Hollywood is telling us to better ourselves to compete like heck for that 25% and not to look up at the top 10% percent of people.  We don't have to try communism, there are many mechanisms that can force our form of capitalism to reward hard work with more resources without giving some people so many that the rest of the people worry about the basics.

I am not sure I am going to go to another movie theater for a while.  I just don't need Hollywood to tell me our lives aren't good enough!

Not in Buffalo: Looking Globalization in the Face

After our great experience last year with my friend in a different part of Guatemala, we decided to go to Antigua to explore more Mayan culture and, of course, some Spanish colonial history.  Aside from the rich educational experience, our second reason for the trip was affordability.  Try going to a vacation spot in the U.S. for the same amount for the same amount of time.  I haven't done too much research, but it seems impossible.  As it is, we can afford a vacation due to being carless.

With my fibromyalgia, my regular days are several hours to get through the stiffness to get going, taking care of my fibro by swimming and stretching, cooking lunch and dinner together so I only need to cook once and simply microwave dinner plates in the evening, take the kids to activities on the bus, and hit the couch immediately upon coming home.  When I go to the bathroom, I move a load of laundry, but most often rely on Tom and the kids to put it away.  I rely on Tom and the kids to clean outside of the kitchen and cooking related tasks.  That is my life most days.  It is fine for me, but leaves little energy for other things including writing these posts.

Of course, in Guatemala, the cleaning comes with the place and it costs very little to pay the person to cook a meal (lunch and dinner together :o) like at home).  This frees up my energy for more posts and more educational site-seeing.  While it is still slow travel, doing only one or two activities a day most days, I can manage them much better.

However, when discussing this recently a relative sort of sneered, particularly when I mentioned that I knew several people who were able to be home with their kids with house help when they were small and they could stretch their various small but remote incomes (some online work, some child support, some investment income) in cheaper countries like Guatemala.  The person who sneered, along with many other Americans, shops at Walmart (they are all pretty bad, but Walmart is the worst given its level of profits) and many other large stores who take advantage of even cheaper overseas labor than house help in Guatemala.  No one in the United States can escape it.  Even L.L.Bean makes items overseas (although at least they take responsibility for their products more than other stores).  Most Americans are taking advantage of cheap labor, mostly because there isn't a choice.  Globalization cannot be fought on the individual level.  I have researched trying to and it can be done on small fronts, but not large.  The people with the power, who control the government, need to address it.

Regardless, the hypocrisy is infuriating.  When you hire house help, you can make a point to pay the higher end of the wage range for the area and position. You can be generally aware of the prices they need to pay for items for themselves. You can make sure they eat some of the meals they make for you.  You can be flexible about their work hours to take care of family commitments.  You can recommend them for further positions if they like.  You get the idea.  When you shop in the U.S. for items, most of which are made overseas, you have no idea how the people are treated and because you don't see them you don't even have to think about them or about globalization.

Hopefully, my kids will think about it and understand it as they progress through their lives.  They are experiencing differences in prices and wealth first hand in Guatemala.  They look our part-time housekeeper in the face and and have to face it in a more real way.  I am not sure most adults have such a perspective on globalization and our economic system.  Schools certainly don't teach it well.  This is mainly because they don't teach economics well.  Noam Chomsky frequently says "Adam Smith who you are supposed to worship, but not read".  Schools have spun the economic message far away from the classical texts.  I can't help but think this is on purpose.  While I love teachers and they are very knowledgeable, few have a grasp of macroeconomics.  It doesn't appear to be taught in teaching colleges.  When it is covered it is covered in a separate course rather than holistically interwoven throughout history.  History is kept separate focusing on names, places, and dates.  Even in a college macroeconomic course, more emphasis is on mathematical models than broad conceptual differences which, sometimes, can't be quantified easily.

Only time will tell if the concepts are sinking in with the kids, but I would like to think that living it for a month will give them a perspective.

Daytime Curfew? In Buffalo?

Update:

I found out this from my Council person:

  Thank you for expressing your concerns, I agree there are a number of issues that would need to be worked out for this to go forward. The daytime curfew ordinance is still in discussion phase and there will be a public meeting next Monday, March 9 from 6pm-8pm at the Edward Saunders Community Center at 2777 Bailey Avenue to discuss the ordinance. I encourage you to attend to express your concerns and hear from other residents.

This morning there I came across the news story:

Officials discuss merits of daytime curfew

I am very troubled by this.  First of all, I have immediate concerns that when I am out and about with my kids, 7 and 8, that I will be required to produce my IHIP compliance letters showing that it is OK that they are not in school because they are homeschooled.  This reminds me of headlines out of Arizona some time ago that people could be stopped and asked to produce proof of citizenship. I am sure if I lived there, I would always be in some kind of trouble since I routinely walk out of the house with only house keys and a bus pass. Ironically, in Arizona, their homeschool laws are among the most free of all the states.  Regardless, I can't help but think that Buffalo should not consider any measures that would remind someone of the proof of citizenship sorts of requirements in Arizona.  It isn't who we are.  A daytime curfew is a terrible idea.  There may be an exception for kids who are with parents (possibly assuming they are on the way to a doctor's appointment or something), but what about homeschooled teenagers who are out in the world learning rather than being cooped up in school?  Will they be harassed by the police on their way to a class at a museum or work at a family business?  I talk to a great many interesting and seemingly responsible teenagers on the bus all the time going to activities or their parents' work.

The other thing that is troubling is the message we are giving to students.  At every turn our society tells teenagers they are not to be trusted.  Perhaps that is why some mistrust adults and don't feel like they need to go to school if enrolled in school (obviously being homeschooled is better in my view).  They know that they are being told what to do and what to think rather than beginning to take on real responsibility.  There are already night curfews.  It isn't great to be out after dark for anyone, but there is a special ordinance for teenagers essentially criminalizing them for more items than corresponding adults.  Once they reach adulthood we tell them they are still can't be trusted to have beer until they are 21.  Then we wonder why our teenagers are a problem.  I can't help but think we are scapegoating them for the problems in society knowing that we can only restrict adult behavior so much.  Sometimes, it even seems that the restrictions have replaced those formerly placed on minorities before civil rights and other measures.  Perhaps we allow the questioning of teenagers during certain hours to indirectly permit the questioning of minority individuals in the process.  African Americans age so well, I am not sure I can tell the difference at times between a 16 year old black teenage or a 19 year old black man.  Won't the police approach the 19 year old too?  Don't forget that most of the city is minority.  I hope people will see the curfew for what it may become.

Am I the only one troubled by this?