Thursday, May 10, 2012
Bad Karma
So, I'm futzing around on The Facebooks, and I find a story on the Holycoast.com blog about Jeremy Guitierrez new Fisker Karma flambé-ing. Now, in general, this is a nominally interesting story, but nothing I'd go out of my way to see. However, since Holycoast is a conservative religious blog, I was curious to see what they were on about.
Seems this was a significantly unfortunate event for Mr. Guitierrez. He lost 3 cars and was temporarily displaced from his home. Adding to the distress was that Fisker Automotive
sent their self-proclaimed “SWAT Team” of engineers and inspectors (that included their own forensic cause and origin investigator) to the Gutierrez home within 24 hours of the fire. They descended upon the Gutierrez home in alarming numbers and immediately demanded a 24-hour lock-down of his home, including the remains of the Fisker Karma vehicle. They also cordoned off portions of the Gutierrez home with non-transparent tarps to block the view from the public.
Seems this was a significantly unfortunate event for Mr. Guitierrez. He lost 3 cars and was temporarily displaced from his home. Adding to the distress was that Fisker Automotive
sent their self-proclaimed “SWAT Team” of engineers and inspectors (that included their own forensic cause and origin investigator) to the Gutierrez home within 24 hours of the fire. They descended upon the Gutierrez home in alarming numbers and immediately demanded a 24-hour lock-down of his home, including the remains of the Fisker Karma vehicle. They also cordoned off portions of the Gutierrez home with non-transparent tarps to block the view from the public.
and...
Despite the fact public safety and law enforcement officials have determined Mr. Gutierrez's home and vehicles are not a crime scene, Fisker Automotive released a public statement on May 8, 2012 implying fraud or malicious intent were open questions. The family is stunned by this implication. The Gutierrez family has afforded every accommodation to Fisker and access to all evidence that public safety and law enforcement official examined. Fisker's statement is a grave disappointment, especially in light of the damages the family suffered and continues to suffer.
Now, this guy will probably do okay after this is all sorted out, insurance will cover his losses, which will probably tot up to something close to 10 times my annual income on my present job(I'm an LPN). Just the same, it's a pity, and I sympathise with the guy.
Now you may wonder why a conservative religious blog would take an interest in this bit of bad luck? Well, the Fisker Karma is an electric car, similar to the much maligned Chevy Volt. Conservatives seethe over anything that smacks of alternative energy, or even energy conservation-like the brouhaha over incandescent lights. Never mind that compact fluorescent and/or LED lights are a better value for money in the long run.
But I digress: basically, Holycoast's only interest in this story is to celebrate the misfortune of a 'liberal'. He deserved what he got because he had the audacity to buy a vehicle that didn't run on petrol. It serves as an object lesson: if you don't toe the rightist line, bad things will happen to you. Interesting how a christian religious blog would forget their own scripture: Oh, say like Matthew 7.12: 'Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.'(KJV)
Seems conservative christians have selective amnesia regarding their own holy book. Jesus was none too happy about hypocrisy, he also said a lot of things about being kind to others, and so on; all of which seem to go straight out the window when Enemies Of The People/Faith are involved. Yet These People Are Better And Moar Righteous Than You.
Fresh Guy
Fresh Guy, a photo by The Eyes Of New York on Flickr.
Monday, May 7, 2012
I was perusing my Facebook page this morning and a couple of items were posted that were Relevant To My Interests.
To start was a Daily Kos article by Bob Sloan regarding ALEC and prison labour. Long story short, very nearly every American corporation has been turning to a new cheap source of labour-our prison population: what with 'illegal' immigration taking a downward turn, and eliminating that labour pool; and the stigma associated with outsourcing. The problem is pervasive and the use of prison labour is so integrated into business-with almost every corporation you can name using some prison labour somewhere, it's nearly impossible to avoid supporting it if you want to live a quasi-normal life. Boycotts are off: you can't avoid the situation.
Just the same it's important to at least know what the problem is, so as to pass the knowledge around. Perhaps a large number of people can say to the myriad of companies involved 'We see what you did there' and bring some pressure to bear. Obviously, given the level of integration of this thing, boycotts are impractical; so another approach has to be brought to bear. I would suggest framing it as a moral issue. After all, if it's good enough for conservative groups to try to superimpose their morality regarding various unimportant issues that aren't their business, anyway, then it's good enough for actual leftists to bring up what amounts to enslaving and exploiting the prison population so as to reap profits for a few. I'd count this as way more egregious and more of a blight on society than, say, gay marriage.
That kind of leads into a second Item of Interest: An article from 24/7 Wall Street regarding the most and least peaceful American States. Now this site claims to provide 'Insightful Analysis and Commentary for US and Global Investors'-not exactly a Bolshevik, or even 'liberal' screed, I would say. But here they are, presenting an article that posits some points that I found relevant: More 'peaceful' States have lower police to population ratios, better access to basic services, less violence (obviously) and cost incurred in dealing with violence. Not pointed out in the statistics presented, but inferred in the article is that economic equity also figures into the 'peacefulness' equation:
Why would this be of concern to yr average capitalist? Well, at least some of this lot have figured out that if the people think they're doing well and they have enough to maintain something of a decent life, then they tend to be somewhat less inclined to, say Occupy things. Franklin Roosevelt, of course, doped this out long ago-which informed his response to the Great Depression. The problem with all this, is that not all capitalist types are keen to pay a price for being rich. They want it all. And they're gonna take it from you.
Not exactly the moral high ground, there, is it? Not that the authors of this piece are particularly concerned with that. It's more a matter of looking after their own self-interest; and ultimately maintaining their wealth and power. That's something that bears watching closely-this sort of thing is substituted for actual reform of the system; and the majority of the general public will buy into it.
To start was a Daily Kos article by Bob Sloan regarding ALEC and prison labour. Long story short, very nearly every American corporation has been turning to a new cheap source of labour-our prison population: what with 'illegal' immigration taking a downward turn, and eliminating that labour pool; and the stigma associated with outsourcing. The problem is pervasive and the use of prison labour is so integrated into business-with almost every corporation you can name using some prison labour somewhere, it's nearly impossible to avoid supporting it if you want to live a quasi-normal life. Boycotts are off: you can't avoid the situation.
Just the same it's important to at least know what the problem is, so as to pass the knowledge around. Perhaps a large number of people can say to the myriad of companies involved 'We see what you did there' and bring some pressure to bear. Obviously, given the level of integration of this thing, boycotts are impractical; so another approach has to be brought to bear. I would suggest framing it as a moral issue. After all, if it's good enough for conservative groups to try to superimpose their morality regarding various unimportant issues that aren't their business, anyway, then it's good enough for actual leftists to bring up what amounts to enslaving and exploiting the prison population so as to reap profits for a few. I'd count this as way more egregious and more of a blight on society than, say, gay marriage.
That kind of leads into a second Item of Interest: An article from 24/7 Wall Street regarding the most and least peaceful American States. Now this site claims to provide 'Insightful Analysis and Commentary for US and Global Investors'-not exactly a Bolshevik, or even 'liberal' screed, I would say. But here they are, presenting an article that posits some points that I found relevant: More 'peaceful' States have lower police to population ratios, better access to basic services, less violence (obviously) and cost incurred in dealing with violence. Not pointed out in the statistics presented, but inferred in the article is that economic equity also figures into the 'peacefulness' equation:
Hawaii(6th most peaceful state) has one of the best economies in the country. Poverty is nearly non existent in the state — Hawaii has a poverty rate of just 10% and one of the highest levels of income equality in the country. According to Gallup’s State of the States report, Hawaii has the fourth-highest level of basic access to necessities. The state also has the longest life expectancy in the country at 81.5 years.Now this is interesting in that all these things cited in the article would be considered 'socialism' by your average 'loudmouth' conservative-AKA a neo-con stooge. The funny thing is that Hawaii is and incredibly expensive place to live; and yet it's liveable for the majority of the population. Less peaceful states tend to be paradises of neo-conservativism: Arizona and Texas, for example.
Why would this be of concern to yr average capitalist? Well, at least some of this lot have figured out that if the people think they're doing well and they have enough to maintain something of a decent life, then they tend to be somewhat less inclined to, say Occupy things. Franklin Roosevelt, of course, doped this out long ago-which informed his response to the Great Depression. The problem with all this, is that not all capitalist types are keen to pay a price for being rich. They want it all. And they're gonna take it from you.
Not exactly the moral high ground, there, is it? Not that the authors of this piece are particularly concerned with that. It's more a matter of looking after their own self-interest; and ultimately maintaining their wealth and power. That's something that bears watching closely-this sort of thing is substituted for actual reform of the system; and the majority of the general public will buy into it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)