Opinions and Rants #36: The Death of American Science

The story of American scientific advancement in the 20^th century goes something like this: Before WWII, scientists and inventors were few and far between.  The War changed all that – the country’s economics boomed, the value of scientific advancement was realized, and the GI Bill sent thousands of men into the sciences that wouldn’t normally have even considered it.

The Atomic Age was born.  Science became the means to prosperity, a Utopian lifestyle and an end to the Commies.  We put a man in space, a TV in every living room, and a mushroom cloud in the Bikini Atoll.   Every kid wanted to be an astronaut and every mom dreamed of automated kitchens – it was science’s golden era.

Our newly minted scientists were chomping at the bit to outdo the Ruskies, but once the Cold War wound down, the competitive spirit went with it.  But science was saved by the microchip, and another boom was born. Americans looked at the computer with the same awe and optimism as they had with burgeoning technologies decades earlier.  Within a short span of time, satellites were put in space that interconnected every human being on Earth that could afford $20 a month.  Atom smashing, fiber optics, space shuttles, nanotechnology, String Theory, the Human Genome Project…. Science was here to stay, and by God, it’s going to be one helluva ride!

Maybe for the rest of the world, but not America.  Here, it’s dying.

The warning signs had been there: declining achievement in our schools, more and more tech jobs being shipped overseas, and a growing disenchantment with the fruits of scientific advancement.  The first clear assault on science came when George W. Bush slashed the federal budget research allotment.  The budget was bigger than before, we hadn’t cut spending – defense went way up – but science funding went way down. 

The super conductor super collider in Chicago nearly closed its doors.  The spot where science could be revolutionized was turning out the lights; meanwhile, the Swiss were building one even better (CERN) which will no doubt be a worthy investment downstream; one that we will most surely regret.

But this was by no means the only spot where science took a hit.  NASA went from being a national treasure, a source of national pride, to being an inconsequential money sucker.  Space programs have all but halted.  The last space shuttle has launched.  It’s over.

This technology can now fit in your pocket

Now the headlines are all about cutting more spending.  Let’s lower the debt ceiling and slash and burn government funded research.  Little do these politicians realize that this is the engine for the economy – it doesn’t come cheap, but its benefits will exponentially outweigh the cost.  

It used to be a matter of common sense that you cannot rely on private companies to develop the new technologies that will spark another fire of advancement.  What company would shell out money for space travel and super colliders? Companies are out to make money, not change the world. 

If you want true innovation, it’s going to have to come from the same place it came from back in the Atomic Age – the classroom and the laboratory.  And both areas, quite frankly, are not looking too good.  Our public schools have already been in a state of serious decline, and now our teachers have been made scapegoats as the reason their states are broke.  What intelligent educated individual in their right mind would ever want to pursue a career in education in this climate?

I, myself, work in a scientific field, so this hits close to home.  It is with a heavy heart that I watch the space shuttle program die as Europe builds the largest machine on Earth.

http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/lhc/Facts-en.html. Republicans seem to want to wipe out even more spending on research, and guys like Limbaugh and Hannity try to shame it by pointing out ludicrous grants (Limbaugh loves to ridicule the cow fart grant). But we will surely cut ourselves into last place.

Opinions and Rants #35: Happy 4th of July!

The Fourth of July gets me feeling all warm and fuzzy about the USA.  I can't help it; despite what some may say, our country is a good country.... nay, a great country.  We've made a lot of mistakes as a nation, but show me one that hasn't.  It's a shame that tea party and ulta-conservatives had to come along and be such anti-patriotic buzz kills.

Say what?
What did he just say?
Is he cracking wise?

They would have you believe that these guys (tea baggers and conservatives) are the true patriots, whilst liberals are just a bunch of communist pantywaists.  I would argue that this couldn't be further from reality.  They wrap themselves in the flag, just as Wal-Mart once emblazoned all their products with a patriotic red, white and blue "made in the USA" tag.

"But as sure as God made black and white, what's done in the dark will come to the light."
- Johnny Cash, God's Gonna Cut You Down

There's a very un-American spirit in the air on Fox News and talk radio. It's shrill and hateful, but wears the costume of the "Founding Fathers". My grandparents would be horrified.  Yes, my grandparents and their generation would have called their rhetoric treason.  In fact, much of what is said by Limbaugh and Glenn Beck would be considered appallingly anti-patriotic.

And this is where the "Retro" in "Retrospace" comes into play.  Here is my list of 5 Ways Conservatives Would Be Called Un-American by My Grandfather.  I use gramps as a personal example, but his beliefs were the consensus of his generation.


1.  Unbridled Capitalism is Un-American

My grandfather wouldn't buy a car made in Japan.  In fact, he was horrified my wife and I purchased a Toyota back in 1992.  He understood that if you want your country to prosper, you need to buy the products it produces.

Unbridled capitalism means letting companies set their headquarters in the Camen Islands and outsource all the labor to Bangladesh.  It makes the companies' coffers bigger; but Americans get screwed: no tax revenue and no jobs.

2. Hateful Speech Against Our Government is Un-American

My grandfather thought those hippies were anti-patriots with their oftentimes hostile words against the government.  You could argue that they loved the country, but hated the government... but I can also see the other side of the argument where they crossed a line.  He would have been just as horrified to hear the unpatriotic poison coming from Ann Coulter's mouth.

Listen to Beck and Limbaugh.  After a while, you wonder if they have anything positive to say about our government.  It's okay to be critical, but holy crap, it's no wonder patriotism is hard to come by these days.  For instance, how is it possible to have school spirit when all you hear is venomous indictments against the principle, the teachers, the school board?

According to the Republicans, Fox News and talk radio: Obama is a socialist and a racist (according to Beck) who hates America. Bill Clinton was a lying sexual deviant hick.  Al Gore is a robotic "environmentalist whacko".  Not knowing where to stop, Ann Coulter called Princess Di a bulimic whore.... just for good measure.  Granted, smear tactics are part of politics, but since when has it been the focus of 24 hour news and radio? It is sure hard to be proud of your country amid all this anti-government negativity. I long for the days when JFK could screw Marilyn Monroe and guys just gave him an imaginary high five.


3. Putting Soldiers in Harms Way in Unpopular Senseless Wars Is Un-American

It was my grandfather's generation that were borderline isolationists.  They waited till the US was actually attacked before entering a war that would cost thousands of American lives.

The 9/11 terrorists were largely Saudi Arabian, not Iraqis. Yet Saudi billionaires were regular visitors to the White House and we attacked Iraq which had no WMDs.... and Afghanistan, and Libya, and Somalia, and... well, what's next? Iran? Do these chicken hawks not realize that it is bankrupting our nation and costing American lives, and leaving thousands upon thousands more with horrible injuries? I guess Americans are just expendable when it comes to matters of "global interest".

4. Destroying the Middle Class Is Un-American

This country is built on the middle class.  The middle class IS America.  My grandfather was fortunate to live in the Golden Age of the Middle Class.  After WWII, the middle class ruled the country - the rich were taxed up the yin yang to keep things equitable.  Limbaugh would call this Socialism; but, this generation was anything but Socialist - they had learned from history (the 1920s and 1930s), and knew what it took to make the country prosperous - and that would require a healthy and robust middle class.

Never mind that Glenn Beck owns several palatial mansions and a private jet, he's looking out for you middle class folks.  Never mind that Rush Limbaugh paid Elton John $1 million to play at his wedding, he's really has the middle class' interests at heart.  To go back to a tax code like during Eisenhower and FDR would be "Socialism".  What assholes.

These same "executives in blue collar clothing" would also have you believe unions are to blame for our bad economy.  They would have you believe they've changed, become more demanding and anti-corporation.  But can they cite one example of exactly how they've changed? The unions want a living wage and benefits for their members - that hasn't changed one iota.  Sean Hannity would be horrified to learn what kind of wages and benefits were demanded from companies back in the 1950s.  It was costly to the companies, but, once again, you have to look at the big picture - it created a healthy and thriving middle class.

5. Constant Rhetoric Against Fellow Americans Is Un-American

For my last point, I'll have to diverge a bit from grandpa's generational attitude a bit.  I can think of a lot of positive words to describe The Greatest Generation, but "tolerant" may not be one of them.  It was a pretty white bread society, with immigrants having a hard time becoming accepted. Gays, blacks, women,.... anyone not a white male pretty much took a back seat.

But acceptance and tolerance is always a gradual thing.  As bad as it was, it was at least on a path, however slow, to tolerance. The vehemence of the Tea Party and its ilk makes me worry that we are taking steps backward.  Like it or not, America was founded on and built upon the "melting pot" philosophy of acceptance.  The path to an acceptable level of tolerance has been slow and rocky, but I feel that if you plotted it on a graph, it would still point in the right direction..... until recently.

Here's the reality: Hispanics do the jobs that Americans don't want to do.  If you are so concerned about them taking our jobs, realize they are only taking the shitty ones - the good ones have all been out sourced by your precious multi-national corporations.

Message to Fox and Friends: Gay people are not going anywhere.  They are productive members of our American society, and regardless of your religious beliefs, they deserve the same rights as other citizens.  They pay taxes and will be called to defend their country in times of war, just like any other American. One of my favorite statistics of late is the graph demonstrating that Red States Google "free gay porn" significantly more than blue states.... most notably Mississippi, per capita the far and away winner in the quest for "free gay porn".

Well, I could go on, but I've ranted long enough.  Time to go outside and trim the hedges.  I truly wish a happy fourth to all my readers.  I rant because I truly do love this country and hate to see it torn apart.  God bless America.

Opinions and Rants #34: News Channels and How Awful They Are

What the hell happened? Headline News is now nothing but a snarling Nancy Grace.  Fox News is basically a Republican megaphone.  CNN does absolutely no journalism; it specializes in senseless conjecture and witless talking heads.  MSNBC is just more talking heads trying desperately to counter Fox, and failing miserably.  If they were at least failing flamboyantly a la Keith Oberman, things might get interesting.

Sure, you dig deep enough, watch long enough, you're bound to come across some kernels of real investigative hard hitting reporting that doesn't insult the viewer's intelligence.... right? Don't answer.

How did we go from Cronkite to Glenn Beck at a chalkboard? Say what you will about Cronkite's political views, it was still "just the facts" with very little in the way of gimmicks and sensationalism.

I remember when talking heads were found on Sunday mornings via shows like Meet the Press, Firing Line and The McGlaughlin Group.  I seem to recall Crossfire with Pat Buchanan and Michael Kinsley being somewhat of a "new thing" by having the left and right battling it out.  No one emerges from the conflict enlightened and changed.  Instead, year after year, left and right fight it out, with no one EVER conceding that they were wrong. Never.  It's just a battle of wills. Not news.

I try to give these channels the benefit of the doubt, but I keep walking away disappointed.  Today, television news is just an unholy amalgamation of Sean Hannity, Rachel Maddow, Anderson Cooper, Glenn Beck, Jon Stewart, Bill O'Reilly, Nancy Grace and other non-journalists. And given the financial difficulties some of these networks are experiencing, it is evident that people are not tuning in any more (except Fox, of course).

This is not a good thing IMHO.  As people turn away from the boob tube, they either become completely removed from world events or they flock to blogs which compliment their views rather than challenge them.  Instead, a staunch conservative is NEVER going to hear a counterpoint or an unbiased report (likewise for the liberal).  The division between the two will widen as both sides migrate to blogs of similar perspectives instead of meeting collectively together each night in front of the TV.

No. You can keep your niche news blogs and Glenn Beck for an hour at a f***ing chalkboard. Give me Cronkite, Chancellor and Huntley-Brinkley for 15 minutes each evening and I'll be happy.

Opinions and Rants #33: Farewell Network TV. It Was Nice Knowing You.

Growing up, I had three networks plus PBS.  That was it.... every day.... for years.  No internet, no HBO, no DVD, no VHS, no cable channels, no Hulu, no Netflix... nada.  I was perfectly okay choosing between (A) Sonny & Cher, (B) The Brady Bunch, or (C) Sanford & Son every Friday night.  The three networks offered up stuff we liked and we were satisfied.

Fast forward to today, and I can honestly say (excluding certain sporting events) I haven't watched NBC, ABC or CBS in years.... and, quite frankly, I haven't missed them.  They were my three childhood "friends", offering me everything from The New Zoo Revue to The Powers of Matthew Star; however, I feel no loyalty to them, considering they have betrayed me.

That's right - betrayed me.  The networks all but killed off the situation comedy, and any drama I get into is cancelled without notice.  I understand reality shows are waaaaay cheaper to produce: no actors, no writers, no sets, no locations.... just dump a bunch of fat people in a room and see if they can lose weight.  It's the cheap and lazy route.  Keeping truly quality shows alive like Freaks and Geeks and Arrested Development seems to be just too much to ask.  They're motto seems to be: "Let's just let HBO and AMC make good original stuff, while we make drivel on the cheap like Dancing with the Stars."

Considering there's so many options now besides the networks, I honestly don't see how this strategy can lead anywhere but bankruptcy - or, at the very least, total and complete insignificance.

To alter a famous quote by T.S. Eliot: "This is the way the networks end. Not with a bang, but a whimper."

Opinions and Rants #32: Food TV Hell

I hate The Food Network.  That's not to say I hate cooking shows - I loved The Frugal Gourmet (before he was wrongfully accused of molesting an intern).  I also liked The Cajun Chef and even The Galloping Gourmet - and, of course, Julia Child.  These shows actually showed you how to cook - they were fun, but also instructional.  Today, we don't get instruction from The Food Network. We get reality shows and genuflecting at the altar of Almighty Food.

Shows like "Diners, Drive-Ins and Dives" just revel in the splendor of food. Oooooo, doesn't that look deeelish! (ugh) They look like their having full-on orgasms when they taste a freaking reuben! It's a sandwich for chrissakes.  I might be interested in learning how to cook it, so as to eat it myself; but, I damn sure am not going to sit and watch you wet yourself over it.

Admittedly, during the daytime, The Food Network actually is okay.  The shows seem to make an attempt at education.  However, in the evening it all goes to hell. Sadly, these are their most popular programs, and so the real blame lands on the stupid f***ing public who seem to lap this garbage up.  Justin Wilson and Jeff Smith would be woefully out of place on Food Network primetime, I'm sad to say.

Opinions and Rants #31: Schooool's Out For Ever!

It seems like state after state is deciding to balance their budget by shafting the government employees, namely teachers.  While I agree there's a bloating at the top, and a lot of practices highlighted in Waiting for Superman are unbelievably inane, I still have doubts whether this the right thing to do.

Here's the deal: the gap between the wealthiest Americans and the middle class has accelerated exponentially.  There simply wasn't the magnitude of separation between rich and poor back in the sixties and seventies; this is an inarguable point, the numbers are clear.  As a consequence of the unprecedented accumulation of wealth among the top five to ten percent, the middle class has shrunk and become closer and closer aligned with the lower class.  It's something akin to France before the French Revolution, and Russia before the Bolsheviks brought down the Czars.

With this fact in mind, recall that our government spent billions upon billions of dollars bailing out these Fortune 500 companies.  We made damn sure these guys didn't suffer the loss of a nickel, and were steadfast in ensuring they got their gigantic severance packages. They were simply too big to fail; or so said Obama's advisors, all former AIG and Goldman Sachs CEOs.




Amid 563 billion taxpayer dollars being funneled to Wall Street, now we suddenly are budget conscious? NOW we suddenly are fed up with the "fat cat" teachers?

Let me get this straight.  The government tosses aside the gold standard causing our dollar to deflate.  Then we get over a TRILLION dollars in debt, much of it borrowed from China.  We spend billions upon billions waging a war which almost no one supports, and we cough up even more billions to big companies (Fannie Mae got 90 billion dollars!)..... and NOW all of a sudden we're penny pinchers and want to make teachers learn the meaning of "sacrifice"?



It's not uncommon to hear level headed intellectuals like Glenn Beck (sarcasm alert) rail against our failing educational system.    The thing of it is, in the wealthier well-to-do districts our public schools actually outstrip Finland, the current "high water mark" in terms of education.  It's only in the mid to lower income areas, that you see a problem.  Is it the teacher's fault that these kids come from fatherless and poverty stricken homes?  Are these teachers somehow worse educators than the teachers in the uppity districts?  Hell, no.  It's just that poor districts have hurdles to overcome that Finland could never dream of.

Indeed, as the gap widens between the ultra rich and the rest of us, the more "problem" neighborhoods we're going to see.  As the distribution of wealth gets more and more uneven, the number of poverty stricken areas will increase, and thus our schools will continue their downward spiral.

And what is our solution? Slash teacher benefits.



Maybe I'm just crazy, but I think this won't solve a damn thing.  I'll wager that five years from now Wisconsin, Ohio, Alabama and any other states getting on the bandwagon will still be broke and have shitty schools.

Perhaps, just perhaps, our schools and our state budgets might improve if we focus on our economy - considering that's the root cause of both problems.  Perhaps the 563 billion bailout wasn't money well spent and we should liquidate and collect on it. Perhaps we could save billions by getting out of the Middle East.  Perhaps we could generate billions in taxable revenue by giving incentives to companies to stay in the US rather than ship operations to third world nations.... and put a tariff on certain imports.  Perhaps we could save billions by stopping this ineffective war on marijuana. Perhaps we should work on reinstating the gold standard, etc., etc., ....

Nahhh.  Let's just cut teachers' benefits.  That'll help.

Opinions and Rants #30: Music Is Stagnant and I Can't Take It Anymore!

I'd like to take a brief moment to bitch, once again, about the state of music.  I won't argue with you about whether the music of today is any better than it was back in the sixties, seventies or eighties.... that's a matter of opinion.  But there can be no denying music has not changed one iota in at least fifteen years.... that's an objective truth.... and it makes me sad.

You play some hip-hop from the early nineties and compare it to today.... it's not changed significantly.  The same goes for that Brittney Spears brand of girl pop.  She hit it big in 1998.... how different is "Baby One More Time" than anything being released by today's chick singers? That was 12 years ago!

You could go down the list of genres, and the principle holds true without exception.  Rock music may in fact be the most stagnant and the biggest disappointment.  Thank you Nickelback.  Nothing significantly new has come from rock and roll since the "slow-hard-slow-hard-- repeat" template of The Pixies and Nirvana.  What the hell has happened?

Do the record companies have such a stranglehold on creativity that they won't permit novelty and change? Or, as both George Martin and Billy Joel have posited, we have simply run out of chord variations.  It's not like classical music where there is an almost infinite variation possible..... rock music is much more finite in its scope of possibilities.  We've simply drained the well dry.

Whatever the reason, it's a damn shame.  I only hope that twenty years from now things sound at least a little bit different. Dare to dream.

Opinions and Rants #29: Everything That Ever Was - Available Forever (ETEWAF)

Patton Oswalt has an article in Wired that is a must read for those interested in pop culture - past and present.  In the essay, Oswalt expresses his theory that society is approaching a state of ETEWAF.  Where once you had to piecemeal your niche interests together one comic book or VHS cassette at a time, today you can become an expert in any narrow interest in a single weekend! I would tend to agree: things are progressing so fast in that direction, I don't think many of us pop culture addicts have stopped to think about the implications.

When I was a kid, a movie came to the movie theater for a few weeks, then it was gone (you assumed) FOREVER. Think about that for a moment.  I had no idea that there would be HBO, VHS, DVDs, Netflix, and (gasp!) torrents! For all I knew, when The Billion Dollar Hobo came to town, that was your one and only chance to catch this movie, ever.  For all I knew, that episode of Starsky & Hutch would never air again.... certainly never on demand.

In contrast, now I can be a Starsky & Hutch expert in a weekend.  I can watch every single episode whenever I want via Hulu or Netflix, I can watch the Ben Stiller remake, I can read all the information surrounding the show on the Internet (i.e. IMDb, Wikipedia, etc.), and I can probably find a few forums of  rabid S&H fans.  I can buy David Soul's album on Amazon, watch the special features on the DVD, listen to the commentary, and read past magazine articles about S&H via Google News or back issues of old magazines available online.... while listening to the soundtrack!  You get the point.  Even the most obscure nooks of the pop culture landscape are available for plunder.

This development is of special interest to me, given that Retrospace is all about plundering less traveled paths in our pop culture past.  Patton Oswalt contends that this may not be healthy for our creative output.  In other words, we're spending too much time looking in the rear view mirror, and not enough on the road ahead.  We are becoming a culture of regurgitated bits from the past; a culture of remakes and lame pop culture references (i.e. Family Guy and VH1 I love the 80's, etc.).

Oswalt believes that when we hit ETEWAF, pop culture will reach its critical mass and implode.  When every book ever made is on every Kindle, and every movie ever made is on every TV, and every song ever made is on every mp3 player.... it will all be over.  No more frothing at the mouth waiting for the newest Italian giallo to be released on Blu-Ray - it already has.  It's ALL available... so what do we do now?

When the Coen Brothers remake of Cannonball Run II in IMAX 3-D spoken entirely in Esperanto hits the theaters, no one will care.  It will all be over. We will all start looking forward again.  We will stop this mad dash to explore the entire surface of our pop culture past, and be content with what lies ahead.

Or so Patton Oswalt would predict....

I have a slightly different opinion.  We are certainly on the road to ETEWAF, no arguments there.  But I don't think having an unlimited resource at our fingertips is a bad thing, nor do I think it leads to some sort of pop culture supernova.

Surely, the constant obscure pop references we see on Family Guy will get old (.... or has already become severely old).  But having this incredible mine as an inspiration is a good thing - after all, every great burst of creativity has relied on something before it.  The Beatles didn't form in a vacuum - they had blues and rockabilly to spark the fire.  Indeed, the Renaissance came about because of a rediscovery of Classical Greek and Roman culture. Get my drift?

Furthermore, I don't think we are in any danger of not having an obscure niche to call our own. We may have to plunder a little deeper, but if we dig deep enough there will always be hidden treasures.  The topsoil is gone, as Oswalt says, but there will always be plenty of bedrock to keep us happy and inspired to create "the next new thing".

Opinions and Rants #28: Hijacking the Message

I like to read and listen to a variety of viewpoints. One day I’ll listen to Rush Limbaugh and the next progressives like Tom Hartman. I’ll also check out the Huffington Post from time to time, and the other day I happened upon an article by porn mogul Larry Flynt that struck a nerve. It struck a nerve because I found myself in complete agreement with, of all people, the king of pornography. Indeed, Hugh Hefner’s net worth is only around 40 million; whereas, Flynt’s is over 400 million. Interesting.

Basically, Flynt was stating that the feminist movement was a wonderful thing, but it was hijacked by Steinem and other radical feminists of her ilk. In the 1960s, Women needed to be liberated, and their liberation was a good thing. Women should have the choice of staying home or entering the workforce. They deserve equal pay for equal work.



Unfortunately, this message was hijacked and steered off course. Suddenly, women were denied the choice of motherhood or work – they had to work, or they would be labeled as backwards thinking baby makers. In other words, women needed liberation because they were not allowed the choice – they had to stay home. Steinem ensured that women still would not be allowed to make that choice, except now it was the reverse. Staying home would get you the Suzie Homemaker stigma.

The Women’s Libbers also hijacked the cause to push the anti-pornography agenda. Once again, we are being denied choices: women chose to enter the pornography business – it wasn’t as if they had guns to their heads – and now they are once again Steinem and her gang has made the choice for her. The Bible Belt Conservatives suddenly had an unexpected ally in the feminists.



The situation is not that different than the NAACP campaign against blaxsploitation films. These were films which employed a lot of African Americans – many were getting handsomely paid for their film work. The NAACP said they were not correctly representing the black populace, and shut them down. Now you had hundreds of black filmmakers and actors out of work… well done, NAACP.

Who was the NAACP to say they were being exploited? That’s demeaning. Who was Gloria Steinem to say these porn stars were being exploited? That’s demeaning too.



So, it turns out Larry Flynt and I share an opinion on something. I wonder what his views are on gun control.

Opinions and Rants #27: God Bless the Rich

I was reading this 1967 editorial by William F. Buckley, and it struck me.... you know, we just don't take time to thank the rich enough. As Tiny Tim said, "God bless them, every one." Indeed, the billionaires need our prayers and blessings too.  So, next time you have a moment, take the time to thank a rich a person.

For instance, the President of Nike makes $13,846 per weekday, while his laborers in Vietnam make less than one dollar a day.  Let's us thank him for the blessings he has bestowed on the Vietamese people. Without him, they would have nothing.

Transocean (the company involved in the BP oil disaster) moved its headquarters from the U.S. to the Cayman Islands in 1999 then to Switzerland in 2008 to avoid paying taxes. They, therefore contribute absolutely nothing to their country's economy, but it's not their fault. Let us pray that our government will lower taxes even more for the rich, so that Transocean can return home again. We miss you Transocean.

The CEO of CVS made $30.4 million in 2009, and CVS cashiers make $8 an hour.  Indeed, the income inequality in this country is the highest in the past eighty years. Mr. CEO earns more in interest per year than his minions of employees will probably every make in a lifetime. But, as Buckley says, "God bless him", for without him there would be no CVS, and those minions would be poor beggars on the street, starving to death.

image from a 12/30/67 Saturday Evening Post

Judging by Obama's Wall Street cabinet, chock full of Goldman-Sachs executives, our prayers for the rich seem to be paying off. Now that they finally have representation in Washington, maybe our government will start helping out the obscenely wealthy for a change.

The top 1% of the population controlls more financial wealth than the bottom 95% combined. God bless the rich, for they give us something to strive for.  If that bottom 95 percent could just be more motivated and intelligent, they too could have it all.

Opinions and Rants #26: Why Everyone Is Broke

For those of you who missed it, the last time I wrote a politically oriented post I was verbally spanked by a wave of angry comments. Basically, the overriding message was: “Stick to The Six Million Dollar Man and Hong Kong Phooey posts, asshole!”

Well, every once and a while, I get the urge to express an opinion on current events – and given that Retrospace is a hobby, not a job, I can pretty much write whatever I want. It’s still in keeping with the theme of this blog because it is a viewpoint based on a retrospective – a viewpoint which steps back to get a perspective on the entire century.

Given our horrific economic situation, I can’t help but trace the chain of events leading up to our current state of affairs. This sort of thing isn't created out of nothing – it comes from increments of change over a period of decades.

During WWII, the United States was able to climb out of depression, due in no small part to the fact that global competition was still piles of burning cinders. The GIs came home, bought a house in the ever growing suburbs and went to work. From the doctor to the TV repairman, all were paid a decent living wage.

Throughout the 1940s and 1950s, the wealthy were taxed big time – their tax rate was over 90 percent! In the 60s and 70s, this was dropped to 70 or 80 percent. In other words, someone earning 50 million dollars may be forced to live on a paltry 5-10 million that year. There were rich people, but the gap between the CEO and the workers was not abysmally wide as it is today. Notice in Mad Men that top ad execs like Don Draper aren’t living in sprawling mansions… that would come in the 80s.

In the Reagan-Bush era, that tax rate for the wealthy dropped down to 28 percent! The new “trickle down economics” scheme was a complete reversal of the way things were done in the 1950s. The unsubstantiated hypothesis was that if you let the rich get exceedingly wealthy, that money would “trickle” down to the peasant class. Unfortunately, as we are seeing, all it amounted to was CEOs making billions more, giving themselves outlandish golden parachutes, and shipping their factories overseas.

The top 300,000 Americans collectively enjoy almost as much income as the bottom 150 million Americans

There were 3 times more money given in CEO bonuses last year than the entire debt in Greece.

Two-thirds of the nation’s total income gains from 2002 to 2007 flowed to the top 1 percent of U.S. households, and that top 1 percent held a larger share of income in 2007 than at any time since 1928,

Yes, the income gap widened significantly since Reagan took office; however, the trend actually had its genesis in 1976, and Bill Clinton and his cronies were every bit as complicit in this mess as the Republicans. Today, there is very little difference between White House staffers and the board of directors on Wall Street.

So what does this mean for you? It means that, unless you are among the top one percent, you have not been able to enjoy the benefits of the economic expansion of the past three decades. In fact, you are being screwed royally.

Chances are, if you are married, both you and your spouse work. Yet, with a dual income, you still live paycheck to paycheck and have significant debt. Why? Is it because you are irresponsible and should be pinching pennies more? Or is something really, really wrong here?

Answer: Something is really, really wrong, and here's what went wrong: (1) that wonderful three decade long economic expansion only helped the top one percent - it never “trickled down”, and (2) corporations can’t afford to pay higher wages when they are competing against countries like Vietnam which pays their workers with wood chips and bits of string. The only way to compete is to put your company overseas or hire illegal immigrants (which is a whole other can of worms).

Most countries have tariffs or non-tariff barriers to protect the industries of their own countries – not the US of A. No sir. It may seem wonderful that you can buy a coffee maker at Wal-Mart for five bucks, but it’s not so wonderful when you realize that the company making it shut down a plant in Missouri to set up shop in Laos. Little do you realize, you probably could’ve afforded the nice, more expensive coffee pot had the wealth stayed in the States and been distributed in a more even manner.

Guys like Limbaugh and Beck are quick to call you a communist for even using the words “distributing wealth”; but take a step back and ask yourself a few questions. Were they communist in the 1950s when the rich were taxed upwards of 90 percent? Is it possible that the companies that partner up with China and take billions out of the government coffers in bailouts are actually the “Commies”? Are you comfortable with the fact that most fortune 500 companies pay ZERO dollars in taxes? Yeah, you heard that right.

For instance, GE made 10.8 BILLION DOLLARS IN PROFITS, BUT PAYED ZERO IN TAXES. You see, the profits were “international”, so they didn’t have to pay up. So, not only is the money not trickling down to you, they’re not even contributing their fair share in taxes.

If you’re okay with this, give yourself a pat on the back for not being a Commie. Rush Limbaugh and the guys at Goldman-Sachs would be really proud of you.

Opinions and Rants #25: Putt Putt Golf and Why Nostalgia Is a Distinguished Pursuit

I was perusing through some old Putt Putt golf magazines from the 60s through the 80s, and some deep thoughts came over me. Why am I doing this? Why would a Putt Putt Golf magazine from 1972 be interesting? I don’t even like Putt Putt golf. Is there something wrong with me?

The more I thought about it, the more I realized you can learn a lot about the world you live in from a nostalgic item as mundane and odd as a Putt Putt golf magazine. Let me explain.

Nostalgia for nostalgia’s sake has its place: it can be an interesting hobby, or just make you feel good reminiscing. A blog devoted to this kind of nostalgia sounds something like this: “Hey, remember the Bit-o-Honey commercials?” or “Hey, remember when Grady made marijuana brownies on Sanford & Son?”…. they’re fun, but not necessarily edifying. One of the wisest things ever said applies here: “The time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time.” In other words, a post reminiscing about miniature golf may not teach you a damn thing, but it has other rewards.

But the biggest value in nostalgia is the world view it brings. Let me ask you a question: who do you think has a better grasp of the Middle Ages – an academic who knows all the names of the royalty and the dates and stats for every battle, or the amateur hobbyist who knows the songs, the fashion and the cultural mindset? If transported back in time, I think the academic would find the Middle Ages a very foreign place, but the amateur would feel right at home.

This is a long way of saying that nostalgia is more than dry facts; it’s mentally placing yourself in another time – which in turn gives you a greater perspective. Those who don’t ever look back are like rats, just living in the here and now. They have no ability to see why things are the way they are, because they can’t trace back the chain of causes. Thus, they have no ability to form opinions on issues, and must either rely on gut reactions or the often equally poor judgment of others.

So, hold your head up high as you take a look at some images from Putt Putt golf magazines from yesteryear. Take in how they dressed, analyze their surroundings, speculate on why Putt Putt was so popular and why its popularity faded, and ponder the gender issues of the day that put pretty ladies posing for readers in something as sexually benign as a Putt Putt golf magazine..... or just sit back and enjoy!



Click the "four arrow" icon on the lower right to expand to full screen.

Opinions and Rants #24: Tea Partiers and Hippies:Two of a Kind

I know tea-partiers will hate to hear this, but I’ve got to say it: tea partiers are a lot like the hippies of the 60s and 70s. This is not a criticism of either group – just an observation.

The hippies hated the government – they didn’t trust it, and felt it was too big, too powerful and too forceful with its power. If you listen to the likes of Glenn Beck, you’ll quickly learn the tea partiers feel exactly the same way. They don’t even want to give out information for the census! [Newsflash to tea partiers: if you have a credit card, own a home or file taxes, you have already matriculated TONS of information about yourself into the system that makes the census data look trivial.]

The hippies loved their country, I’m sure; however, their actions and words often sounded highly unpatriotic. They burned draft cards, rioted, and painted Nixon and LBJ into demonic figures. Their view of American history was also tinted with a pessimism and anger. Remember the teacher in Dazed and Confused?

"OK, guys, one more thing. Hey, this summer when you're being inundated with all this bi-centennial, Fourth of July, bru-ha-ha just remember what you're celebrating. That's the fact that a bunch of slave-owning aristocratic white males didn’t want to pay their taxes."

I had a lot of teachers that felt that way. It was a far, far cry from the so-called “greatest generation” who glorified American history, and practiced an unquestioning allegiance to the flag. The tea partiers would like to associate themselves with that group, but I hate to break it to them – they have a lot more in common with the hippies.

They view the President as a minister of evil and Congress as a bunch of worthless fat cats – people to be feared and despised, not respected. To both the tea partiers and the hippies, protest and venomous criticism are the highest forms of patriotism.

My father was in the military during Vietnam, and literally had stones thrown at him by hippies when he was wearing the uniform. I’d like to go back to a time before all the cynicism and hatred. It’s a good thing to question the government, but there’s a line that you cross where it serves only to tear down and not build up. You may not like the President, you may not respect your representatives, but sometimes your shouts of protest can weaken our collective national pride.

Not too long ago, President Obama gave a televised speech to children across the country. My kids would have loved this – that seed of patriotism would have been planted in their young minds. To them, it was as if the president was speaking directly to their classroom, and they looked forward to it. Sadly, the speech was not shown at their school due to protests from parents! Thanks a lot. Now these students can grow up to distrust and hate their country just like mom and dad.

The hippie elite tore down any remaining crumbs of faith in The White House with Watergate. The conservative movement (i.e. proto-tea partiers) did the same thing with the Monica Lewinsky scandal. I wonder if it was worth it to cheapen and denigrate the presidency in order to tar and feather a President for getting it on with an intern. The tea partiers would love to once again make a mockery of the Oval Office by dredging up dirt on President Obama (i.e. his affiliation with ACORN and the controversy over his birthplace). Thank God these tea partiers weren’t around during the Kennedy presidency – they would have destroyed Camelot with all of JFK’s extra marital shenanigans.

Sure, there’s an element of vehemence on both sides of the aisle – the tea partiers certainly aren’t the only voice of derision. But my point here is to make it abundantly clear to teapartiers – you may think you are heirs to The Greatest Generation, but this couldn’t be farther from the truth. You make any hope for a renewed faith in our government impossible.

Opinions and Rants #23: Music Sharing (Part Two): A Reality Check

I understand the protest agains music sharing. It deprives musicians of their rightful earnings. It's like painting a picture, putting in a gallery for sale, and having it stolen. We can't expect them to be happy about it.

However, there comes a point where you need to just face reality.  It's a sad, it's ugly and it's unjust.... but it's a reality that is not going to go away. They estimate that 1.4 billion people have Internet access - that's 21% of the world's population with the capability to hijack music with ease! At some point you need to face reality and look for other opportunities to allow your music to make money.

I don't pretend to have the solution, but then, it's not my problem. Ultimately it will come down to one of two possibilities: (1) Some innovative band will develop a novel way to cash in on quality music or (2) musicians simply will not make zillions of dollars anymore; instead of earning twenty times the gross domestic product of most countries, musicians will be more like they were in the 1960s where only a select few (Elvis, The Beatles, etc.) can make obscene amounts of dough.

Tell me how I'm wrong. Or, better yet, let me know just how right I am.

Opinions and Rants #22: A Rant About Image Hijacking

I don't mind at all when images from Retrospace are used elsewhere. In fact, it brings me a sense of satisfaction seeing a Retrospace pic on another blog - imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.  Plus, these images aren't really my property - as I've elaborated in another post, they are scanned from magazines, comics, etc. and are really the property of the creator of the material.  A 7-Up advertisement from 1972 is the property of 7-Up, so I have no right to be outraged when my scan of the advertisement turns up on someone else's blog - it wasn't really mine to begin with!

That being said, it is infuriating to see a picture from Retrospace slapped on someone else's blog with no credit given.  Sure, I didn't create the ad, but I did go through the effort of buying the old magazine, scanning it in, and uploading it for public viewing. It's common courtesy to at least reference the source of the image.

How do I even know these images are mine? Maybe the blogger owned the same magazine or comic as me, scanned it and coincidentally posted it shortly after me..... not a chance.  When you scan something, the way the image is cropped, the exposure, and details such as fading and rips can identify an image as yours, and not someone else's independent creation.

I think that some folks can be forgiven for being noobs.  I did the same thing myself many times before - clueless to the fact that I was screwing somebody else who spent a good deal of time and effort to provide the image.  However, most of the time, it's from bloggers who just don't give a shit, and everything's fair game for them.

The solution to this is to watermark the photo with a Retrospace logo; however, I will never do that because I feel like it takes away from the eye candy.  There's also a way to make the picture look different if it's embedded on another site - but this doesn't prevent someone from just saving the picture themselves and posting it without giving credit. After all, I WANT MY IMAGES SHARED - I just want credit where credit is due.

In the end, the Internet is like the wild, wild west, and there's really nothing we can do about it..... that is, except bitch and moan in posts like this. What's your opinion on the matter?

Opinions and Rants #21: The Marriage Ref: Historically Bad

Do you remember "Loves Me, Loves Me Not"? Chances are you don't.

How about "The Montefuscos", "Mr. T and Tina", "No Time for Sergeant", "Wendy and Me", "Turnabout", "Sweepstakes", "Hot L Baltimore" and "Never Say Never"? Again, chances are, you do not. These were all actual television shows from the 60's and 70's that weren't particularly good, and were cancelled after a mercifully short run.

So, what makes something become "forgettable" versus an "epic failure"? The answer is: the bigger the gap between the input and output, the bigger the fail.  The input is the money, hype and big name celebs you put into a show. The output is the quality and financial success of a program.  Using this definition, I submit to you that "The Marriage Ref" is the worst television show in the history of television... and, no, I haven't forgotten about "Hello, Larry".

In the case of "The Marriage Ref" you have an unprecedented amount of hype. Not only does it mark Jerry Seinfeld's triumphant return to prime-time, but the commercials on NBC were incessant.... the show itself literally interrupted the closing ceremonies at the Winter Olympics! The exceptionally good ratings this year for the Olympics were completely squandered on this piece-o-shit.

The talent wasted on "The Marriage Ref' is epic: Tina Fey, Alec Baldwin, Seinfeld, Larry David, Ricky Gervaise, etc. It's not unlike  Ishtar - a movie that was such an amazing waste of Beatty and Hoffman that it magnified its awfulness.

As to the show itself, the word "bad" simply doesn't cover it. Even the terms "awful" and "pathetic" fall short of describing the shite that is "The Marriage Ref".   I think this show is so unique in its awfulness that I'm going to have to invent a new word to capture it.  I was leaning toward "terrihorrible", but felt that this still didn't measure up, so I've decided on "ThereisnoGod".  Yes, this show is so horrible, it made me question the very existence of a higher power.

 

The very idea of the show is idiotic: (1) present a 2 minute clip of a married couple having issues over a trivial matter, like "my husband spends too much time grooming" and then (2) have the celeb panel crack wise about it.  WTF? How is this even a show? While I detest reality show crap like "Jersey Shore" and "The Bachelor", I can at least can grasp why they were made.  How "The Marriage Ref" even exists is beyond my understanding. 

I'm also pissed because I was looking forward to watching The Informant on DVD. Now it will be ruined because "The Marriage Ref" host, Tom Papa, is a character in the film, and that's all I will be able to think about. He's also in the upcoming Rob Zombie movie, El Superbeasto, which will also now be ruined.

I have many battle scars from TV failures of the past 40 years; I'm no noob when it comes to bad television. I was there when McLean Stevenson left M*A*S*H and starred in SIX, count 'em SIX, failed sitcoms. I was there when Chevy Chase tried to host a late night talk show.  I was there when Steven Bochco decided to make a musical cop show.  I was there for "Manimal", "The Ropers" and "Small Wonder".... and this beats them all.  "Marriage Ref", I hereby pronounce you "The Worst Television Show of All Time"! 

("whew" wiping sweat from brow. "I need a drink".)

Opinions and Rants #20: Money, Money, Money

My grandparents weren't especially well off, but they didn't have a penny of debt when they passed away.  They lived fairly frugally and paid for everything with cash.... they couldn't conceive of the world we live in today.  Pretty much everyone is up to their eyeballs in debt. Whether it's credit card bills or car and mortgage - pretty much everybody owes way more than they're worth.  And our federal government is the worst perpetrator of all. Where once we had a gold standard, now we print money with abandon, and have no problem with sending an IOU to China for a gazillion dollars. Ugh!

Who's to blame? We are all perpetrators in this mess for electing greedy morons into office.  President Clinton left office supposedly with a surplus, but then George W. spent us into oblivion. Now, Obama is one-upping Bush.... where does it end?  As I write this, we are 12.5 trillion dollars in debt.  How will our economy look when we're 25 trillion in debt... any different? How about 100 trillion?

Once upon a time, you could work at the local Walgreen's selling aquarium gravel and make a decent wage. Nowadays, most families have to have two income earners to make ends meet, and they're still living paycheck to paycheck.  I get really disgusted listening to douchebags like Dave Ramsey preaching the "no debt at all cost" mentality when a huge segment of our jobs don't pay a living wage.  Tell me how you can live without debt working at Wal-Mart - your employer doesn't provide insurance, so when you deduct that from your minimum wage, there's not enough left to even cover the lowest of mortgages, let alone groceries, etc.

But then, when you're in the game of competing with countries (and US companies who make everything overseas.... I'm talkin' to you Wal-Mart) who pay their employees with rice and thread, it's hard for a business to justly compensate their employees and remain competitive..... it's quite the mess we're in.

So, what's the solution? Well, I don't think you need a Harvard Economics Ph.D. to understand that we can't just keep bailing out banks and companies whilst crossing our fingers that the economy will improve. I think you need look no further than the 1950's when the US was prospering to see the solution to what ails us.  I don't have time to spell it all out; perhaps, I'll elaborate in another post.  For now, suffice it to say, it will involve tightening the belt.... several notches.

I'd be interested to hear anyone's opinion on this issue. Leave a comment and tell me where I'm wrong (or right).