 |
Culture of Integrity Inspiring Corporate America to Recognize Social Responsibility Sign up for your Free iNewsletter: and also visit |
Capitalism has spun out of control
turning America in to a Corporate Dictatorship.
Join me in raising the bar and preventing Corporate
America from
further reducing us to a lowest common denominator
society.
Commentaries
The purpose of these writings is to interact & discuss
the issues.
The voice must be louder, stronger, and smarter than just mine.
If I am not seeing the whole picture, you can help clear the fog.
|
TABLE OF CONTENTS Electile Dysfunction America the Brut-iful Terror in the Skies Roll Out The Barrels Work for Life "High" School Banking
On The Dollar Politically
Incorrect America the Prude-iful Church &
State Trading Places TV (True
Values) Pests
Aside Humming
the Same Old Tune Painfully
Fresh Banking
on Fallen Heroes Junk
Food for Thought Sus-pension
of Job Security Arresting
Human Intelligence Un-convention-al
TV Prescription
Drugs - Payola Ain't Just for Radio Targeting
Teens Where No Parent Has Gone Before Reality
TV - "Idol"-izing Rock Bottom |
| Electile
Dysfunction
The results are in and Democrats have prevailed in Congress. Most people in my circle are thrilled. I too am pleased to see that America has voted for change and voiced its disapproval for the way our country is being run. However, as the Republicans are claiming, the GOP lost this election rather than the Democrats winning it. For almost as long as I can remember, most people that I know have voted for "the lesser of all evils" rather than for a particular candidate or policy in which they believed. What does this suggest? Is no one capable of running our country in a satisfactory manner? Do citizens simply make bad choices repeatedly? Perhaps we as a nation fail to trust our elected officials enough to truly empower them to make progress. The checks and balances of a bipartisan government is a bottleneck, and I am skeptical about the next two years of bickering. The Bush administration with a Republican majority made significant "progress," but they seemed to have progressed in the wrong direction according to most Americans (and much of the world). Unfortunately, a stagnant government now seems to be the better choice..."the lesser of all evils." Ravi (www.heyravi.com), is an Artist/Musician, Author, Guitar Clinician, and Music Business Consultant with a career spanning from the dives of Manhattan to the Oval Office. Read more of his commentaries and subscribe for your FREE iNewsletter at www.CultureofIntegrity.org. ©2006, Suburban Turban Inc. It's interesting. When Ralph Nader ran his presidential campaign (or rather, non-campaign) in 1996, and then his full-hearted effort in 2000, for once I found myself thinking, "Here is a candidate that I would really be happy - even psyched - to vote for... Someone advocating single payer health coverage (all of us who have been freelance musicians know how challenging - and expensive - it is to stay covered), publicly funded elections (no more polls bought and paid for by General Electric, General Motors and Halliburton), a call for a REAL livable minimum wage, support for alternative energy resources (ending our dependence on foreign oil and our brutal policy of aggressive militarism in the Middle East)... and of course, real concern about the environment... For once, here was somebody talking about REAL issues, that matter to all of us... I was happy to pull the lever for Ralph. But then some people started screaming, calling voters like me "spoilers", because we had the audacity - the temerity - to actually dig a candidate who was on the ballot and be happy to vote for him... Somehow I was under the impression that that's what you're supposed to do in a democracy... but evidently I was misinformed ;) This is a very sophisticated analysis (I love the heading). I didn't know you were a political observer and pundit. Unfortunately, I'm afraid you are correct about who won and lost. I just hope the Dems realize that they didn't get the same "political capital" that Bush thought he acquired in the last election, that they don't misspend the alleged capital, as Bush did, and, as a result, wind up in the back seat again. Early indications are that they have a bead on reality. I just hope they don't get carried away with the power and prestige of running Congress and that they keep their eye on the ball. A good indication will be who gets the Majority Leader position in the House. If its Murtha, rather than Steny Hoyer, I will be a bit nervous about where Pelosi is headed in her efforts to forge consensus--she doesn't like Hoyer, but he is the more centrist of the two, I think, and would likely be viewed by the Republicans (and many Democrats) as the lesser of two evils. I am skeptical in any event that bipartisanship will win the day. The political situation will be fun to observe in the next 2 years. To me, it seems that the only goal of any elected official, Donkey or Elephant, is to get reelected! Sometimes they try so hard that they make stupid mistakes. And, unfortunately, some of those elected turn out to have some weird behavior patterns. I have no ideas about how to fix the problems, other than elect me as GOD, and let me take care of everything! Interesting thoughts about the election. In most
cases I get frustrated that people vote for the person they not-want
the least rather than who’d they want the most because they don’t
believe they have a chance of winning, but in this case I was all for
simply stopping the bleeding, since the current administration tend
to support bloodletting (figuratively and literally) to cure the world’s
ills. But even if you don't think that a democratic congress means that
improvements will be made (there's a case to be made that that's true),
there were some important victories, like South Dakota voting against
the abortion ban and most Massachusetts towns passing an ordinance that
their elected officials tell George Bush they want to see a careful
yet immediate withdrawal from Iraq. And there were some devastating
losses, like Arizona passing 4 anti-immigrant measures and a fifth to
make English the "state language," which is reminiscent of
10 years ago when the same state's governor refused to acknowledge Martin
Luther King Day as a national holiday. In Massachusetts, it's easy to
be a one-issue voter. The commonwealth is leading the way as far as
same-sex marriage, and mass-equality endorses the proponents of gay
marriage, though even they fall short of making an endorsement in all
the races. They contend that it's not as important to make an endorsement
in races that won't affect the congressional votes on the issue, and
my thinking is that I'd rather not have any prejudicial reps at any
level. I know!!!! What a horrible direction! That low
unemployment number, the highest wages ever. Highest home ownership
ever, highest minority wages and home ownership ever. Low taxes way
down from Bill Clintons all time high. Low taxes=the highest amount
of money raised in a single month ever by the US govt. for revenue.
Yet now unlike Clinton the richest Americans pay almost all the taxes
in America. Bush put the most money into education ever, and started
a prescription drug program. And my goodness, 50 million freed people
from Islamic Fascism . . What was he thinking?!!! I don't get it Ravi,
how is all that economic growth bad for America? |
| America
the Brut-iful Last night on 60 Minutes, there was a disturbing story about teenagers beating up homeless people (to death in some cases) for "fun." That this would equal "fun" for any "human" is beyond me, but the fact that many of them can walk into a local store and purchase the DVD "Bumfights" is perhaps even more disturbing. The creator of this video series that pays nominal fees--sometimes in the form of alcohol--to homeless people in exchange for allowing harm to be done to them on camera (or doing things that could harm themselves)--sees no harm in what he is putting out into the world. Perhaps he is as misguided as the kids imitating his videos and doesn't know any better (although he seemed to wrestle slightly with his conscience during the interview). However, what about the company that bought the rights for 1.8 million dollars and put it into the mainstream at major retailers? Isn't there someone between the cameraman and the cashier that has some sense of social responsibility? Certainly the capitalist in me says that if there is a market for it, one has every right to tap it. No doubt, there is a market for it--as disturbing as that is. It begs the questions, however, would there be if it hadn't been introduced to the mainstream in the first place? The mere induction of such staged extreme human behavior inspires it in reality...life imitates art, although in this case, life imitates the exploitation of the worst human qualities. Why aren't kids latching onto concert videos and more positive methods of ego boosting social endeavors, as my friends and I did as teenagers? As an artist, I struggle with the concept of censorship. However, as members of society, don't you think it's high time we put some gatekeepers in place? Ravi (www.heyravi.com), is an Artist/Musician, Author, Guitar Clinician, and Music Business Consultant with a career spanning from the dives of Manhattan to the Oval Office. Read more of his commentaries and subscribe for your FREE iNewsletter at www.CultureofIntegrity.org. ©2006, Suburban Turban Inc. Yeah
Ravi, I saw that 60 minutes interview last night. It is very sad. There
are some gate keepers in place though, namely lawsuits, and criminal
prosecution, but the constitution does protect freedom to contract,
even if it is an exchange for alcohol, and especially the Constitution
protects freedom of certain types of speech - the original creator plead
guilty to staging an illegal fight in public - but otherwise there was
no crime he could have been convicted for committing. He is being sued
in civil court and will most probably lose all the income he made plus
be hit with severe punitive damages. He will go back to being broke
and a convicted criminal - though it probably was only a misdemeanor.
The other aspect I thought was encouraging at least was the fact that
the incarcerated kid felt badly about what he did, and told the camera
that kids should look at him and his life sentence before they continue
to wallow in their insecurity, ignorance and otherwise hostility towards
humanity - teenage angst at its worst. Once physical fitness and appearance (aka the appearance and willingness for violent behavior) took center stage in the USA, anything is possible. Want gatekeepers. This DVD or that? How about a moratorium on professional sports until things can be cleaned up? Extreme? Yes. But we are talking about gatekeepers. A lyric for an unreleased replacement for the national anthem: These skin-tight tee-shirts give me rights There was a time when life was fine Land of the free, home of the brave There's still a way we can be fee Well, that is a deep subject! I have been railing about the terrible emotional damage that has been done to an entire generation of African American kids (and their counterparts in other countries) by violent, brutal, pornographic "Rap Music!" Kind of hard to call it music. So, where do we draw the line? Who knows? The world is in a mess, and it does not seem to be getting better. If anything, it is getting worse! I wish you luck with "ringing the bell" about all of this terrible stuff. I had no idea about this "Bumfights" video. Why don't you send what you wrote in the email to somewhere highly visible, like a letter to the NY Times or something to get more people on this than just your newsletter Whether it's technically legal or not, many people would be outraged by it as you and I are and enough people protesting about something can have an effect, like taking it off the shelves. I would help with getting the word out there. |
| Terror
In The Skies I recently returned from Europe in the midst of elevated airline security and liquid bans due to the foiled terrorist plot in London. Despite recommendations to arrive over 3 hours early and to proceed quickly through security, everything was surprisingly/disappointingly fast and relaxed--I arrived at my gate over 90 minutes early. However, the real scrutiny began right at the gate during boarding. Every bag was hand checked, lipsticks were opened (and some confiscated), pens were examined, batteries were removed and put back from electronics (although not from my laptop or ipod), and every person was hand frisked and patted down. Consequently, a flight that began boarding an hour early (they should have started earlier) left two hours late. I don't mind being late if I am safer, but I don't believe that I am since there were plenty of unchecked pockets and compartments in my bag and within my laptop itself. Now, there is much controversy about the cargo put on passenger planes, of which, according to recent news reports, only 15% is actually screened. Someone who really wants to commit an act of terror in the sky will do so. I stood in line watching my fellow passengers ahead of me act like victims and be treated like criminals. The prevailing thought running through my head was that in fact the terrorists have won. Americans, and all citizens of the western world, are kowtowing to the fear created by terrorists and promoted by western governments. We accept added inconvenience and pay security fees on top of already elevated airfares due to oil costs. Planes are being unnecessarily diverted and escorted due to a heightened awareness of "odd" passenger behavior. Our tax dollars are heavily invested in combating "evil", yet it seems painfully obvious that we are fighting an "evil" that we brought and continue to bring upon ourselves. It's a waste of time, money, and dignity. Wouldn't it be a much more effective use of our tax dollars and means of securing our skies to revert to pre 911 airport security (I'll keep my shoes, belt, and sweater on, thank you) and create a reward fund for valid tips on terrorist plots? According to the Seattle Times in regard to the latest uncovered terror plot, "It all began with a tip: After the July 7, 2005, subway bombings in London, British authorities received a call from a member of the Muslim community, reporting general suspicions about an acquaintance." Incentives would target mankind where it is most vulnerable, yielding positive results. By lining pockets rather than emptying them--figuratively and literally--perhaps we could start living as "the land of the free and home of the brave." Ravi (www.heyravi.com), is an Artist/Musician, Author, Guitar Clinician, and Music Business Consultant with a career spanning from the dives of Manhattan to the Oval Office. Read more of his commentaries and subscribe for your FREE iNewsletter at www.CultureofIntegrity.org. ©2006, Suburban Turban Inc. I am an international B777 pilot. I totally agree with your comments below on airline security. It is ridiculous to target those that are NOT the enemy. The only way to solve the problem is through profiling, personal interviews, and yes... money for lining the pockets of those who will give up their friends! The MAJOR problem here is that so much of the so-called "Terrorism" is FALSE FLAG! i.e. conducted by the US and our allies to subvert the electorial process here in the US. Did you notice that Bush's approval rating went up and his disapproval rating went down immediately after the "plot" was uncovered. What do you want to be there will be another "terror alert" just before the elections? I agree with you. Time
was, one traveled to Japan, bought a Samurai
sword to bring home, brought to prize to the boarding gate (nice weapon!).
They took it from you and |
| Roll
Out The Barrels What is really driving the oil prices? Is it blatant price gauging by big (and not so big) companies? Perhaps in part, but ultimately it is a supply and demand issue. It is now coming to the surface as to how slim our global supply actually is. "The number of major new oil fields discovered around the world fell to zero for the first time in 2003, despite an obvious increase in technological expertise," says the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation). America blames the rapid growth in China to be greatly impacting our price at the pump. "In 2004 China used some 6.5 million barrels of oil a day and overtook Japan as the world's second largest user of petroleum products," reports the New York Times. Of course, the USA, one third of the population of China, ranks #1 (perhaps we need more bicycles...it would solve the oil and obesity problem at the same time). Additionally, while the politicians may not be able to control the prices overseas, they can control them here. Americans' wallets are not necessarily thinning due to far away lands. "Oil is far too cheap at the moment," says Matthew Simmons, an energy investment banker and adviser to the controversial Bush-Cheney energy plan, in a 2004 BBC news report. "We need to price oil realistically to control its demand. That is because global production is peaking. If we price oil correctly it could give us time to find bridge fuels, fuels to fill the gap between an oil economy and a renewable economy." So while the President is telling us how concerned he is about working Americans paying high prices at the pump, if Simmons advice was taken, we can blame the President (and his predecessors) for making us pay for the government's mismanagement of our economy. It's pretty obvious that our real purpose in Iraq is oil, and from an economical point of view, that is a better justification than paying the price of war looking for weapons of mass destruction that were never there. Unfortunately, it seems that the oil isn't there either. I wonder, how many solar panels could have been bought for the price of the Iraq war? Ravi (www.heyravi.com), is an Artist/Musician, Author, Guitar Clinician, and Music Business Consultant with a career spanning from the dives of Manhattan to the Oval Office. Read more of his commentaries and subscribe for your FREE iNewsletter at www.CultureofIntegrity.org. ©2006, Suburban Turban Inc. Ravi, I like your music a good bit and really like what you are trying to teach other musicians about "The Music Business", but I kindly disagree with your thoughts on the Iraqi War. If oil is the only reason we are there, then why didn't we take it the first time we (coalition forces) completely dismantled Saddam's highly regarded "Republican Guard". Also, the mad dictator's (poisoning your own citizens qualifies you as a "mad man") weapons of mass destruction haven't been found yet because they were parceled out to Arab countries all around the region. If you think that is a false statement, then you must be watching too much CNN. Get on the internet and dig,dig,dig! The facts and the truth will really open your eyes. Until then, may the peace of God be with you every step of your way in this world. Thanks for letting me vent. P.S.--i have solar floodlights on two corners of my house and love them! Yes, Americans are too used to cheap fuel. Everywhere
else in the world, people pay highly taxed prices for gasoline and less
so but still plenty for heating oil, etc. Here in Israel, most all household
hot water is by solar energy (with an electric boiler backup for cloudy
periods in the winter). Unfortunately, private cars are being encouraged
here by cuts in public transportation Every bomb drops in Iraq explodes on the Gulf Coast. |
|
The current student protests in France combined with recent news reports of Americans working longer hours should make us all think about how we spend our time. The French enjoy 35 hour work weeks and six weeks of vacation per year, and they want to keep it that way while maintaining a high level of job security. Much of the world thinks that the French are just spoiled. The downside is a high rate of unemployment amongst young graduates (many employers do not want to be married to unproven employees), hence the new controversial law that gives employers greater firing rights over young workers. Conversely, 60 Minutes (CBS) this week reported, "Americans work longer hours than nearly anyone in the developed world, even the Japanese. For many professionals and corporate managers, the 40-hour work week is history; 60- to 80-hour work weeks are now the norm." And this is with no guarantee of job security! Yet, according to 60 Minutes, "When it comes to productivity, the U.S. is not No. 1. In fact, workers in four European countries, including France, are more productive per hour of work than Americans." What are we doing wrong? Is it our education, work ethic, or simply fatigue? Could the corporate culture of "out-houring" the boss be coming back to bite us? It's time we get back to hanging out with our kids, appreciating arts and culture, getting involved in our local communities, and becoming more well-rounded and balanced people. It's also time that the boss understands how to get the most out of employees. Perhaps that will solve many of society's problems while making us more productive. What could be better than a lower divorce rate, fewer kids strung out on Ritalin (the babysitter for the overburdened parent), and a stronger economy? Ravi (www.heyravi.com), is an Artist/Musician, Author, Guitar Clinician, and Music Business Consultant with a career spanning from the dives of Manhattan to the Oval Office. Read more of his commentaries and subscribe for your FREE iNewsletter at www.CultureofIntegrity.org. ©2006, Suburban Turban Inc. I think you hit it right on the head the popular American culture has lost it's way in terms of quality of life. Let's face it, the lowered effective wages--I
could achieve about one third my
|
| "High"
School
"Recent nationwide surveys conducted by the University of Michigan and other researchers have indicated that the abuse of prescription drugs among young adults and teens is increasing, while the abuse of drugs such as cocaine and heroine is decreasing among those groups...Many of those who misuse narcotic pain relievers such as OxyContin or Vicodin, or stimulants such as Ritalin, are doing so not necessarily to get high, but also to ease stress or to try to improve academic performance." (USA Today) => Facts and Figures: => Ravi's "One Minute" Commentary: Schools today take advantage of busy parents with simplified grading. If they pile on the homework and pressure kids into outranking their peers in the percentiles, perhaps parents will believe they are getting their money's worth as long as junior is constantly busy. Actually educating children seems to be secondary. Keeping up with the Jones' often means getting into the best preschool to put one on a path to Harvard. Today's typical family environment provides a less than nurturing environment, and given our society's bottom line/instant gratification mentality, it appears to be acceptable to do whatever it takes to make the "low fat milk" rise to the top. Here comes Ritalin...a drug that has become a quick substitute for parenting. Of course, there are countless cases where the prescription may be appropriate. Yet, the popularity of the behavior modifying substance has made it fashionable, especially for the "baby-boomer "and "generation X" parents that have too much going on in their own lives to take the time to raise their children. It's no surprise that those who are "white, live in a fraternity or sorority house and have lower than a 'B' average" are the primary abusers. Furthermore, the common place of prescription drugs in our society numbs us of the dangers, so why wouldn't impressionable teenagers be willing to trade such mood enhancing tablets as if they were chewing gum? Every other commercial on TV is a drug ad. It should be illegal to advertise any product that cannot be purchased by the general public. In a time where we take marijuana for medical use away from those who
suffer from a great deal more pain than a "'B" grade point
average, it is outrageous that tighter regulations are not imposed on
the prescription of drugs for non-medical purposes. However, if it raises
the grades, parents and schools are happy. So who's going to fight it?
The profiteering drug industry? The government who is basically employed
by the drug lobbyists? Certainly not the kids who suffer the most...they
die from the overdosing or carelessly mixing with alcohol. Perhaps it
is up to the grieving parents. On the other hand, maybe one day we will
realize that we are no longer well educated humans, just chemically
dependent beings. ©2005, Suburban Turban Inc. => Suburban Turban Inc. invites and encourages
you to circulate, reprint, or republish this commentary as long as the
copyright notice and bio remain attached. Your
Neighbors' Responses: Like Tom Cruise's comments about psychiatry,
your comments in your latest "Culture of Integrity" are oversimplifications
of a variety of (different) issues compiled into one montage of negativity
toward a growing culture of keeping up with the Jones. As a physician,
I would argue that the priorities should be on underage drinking, lack
of parity in coverage for mental illnesses, lack of appropriate research
funding into mental illnesses, redirecting our political system's views
on mental illness in general, personal accountability for medical problems
you create yourself (such as alcohol abuse and cigarette smoking along
with chronic pulmonary disease, etc.). I do not deny that there are
continued problems with over-prescribing of many drugs, including the
cognitive enhancing drugs. However, to place the blame squarely on the
shoulders of our government or drug lobbyists is to do the very thing
that everyone else is doing: assigning blame elsewhere and externalizing
the source of responsibility. We, collectively and individually, need
to stand up and take into account our own actions. Without a mirror
to reflect in first, we should throw no stones. Thanks for the argument--it's a good one, and I agree with much
of what you are saying. However, I see the real problem as the unnecessary
pressure our education system puts on kids. The system generally does
not outfit students with the tools that help them grow up to be globally
competitive, yet expects them to compete on a black and white grading
system that doesn't promote intelligence or critical thinking, but rather
a competitive edge (in other words, quantity not quality). Most schools
today seem to be less demanding in performance, but more demanding in
productivity. This is often assessed by today's parents on a report
card level, rather than a committed parental involvement both in schools
and at home. The use of Ritalin and other drugs has demonstrated some
improvement in many kids. However, as a music teacher, I can tell you
that I have had my share of kids on Ritalin to keep them calm, but they
come to their lessons with a Coke and a Snickers bar--provided by mom,
dad, or the baby-sitter. Yet, if the drug shows results (perhaps much
of which could be obtained through dietary changes or good old fashioned
discipline), it is desirable not only from those who are taking it,
but the peers (and parents) who are academically in competition. I'm
not suggesting that the government or lobbyists are "squarely"
to blame, but where is the incentive for them to further investigate? Remember that the "baby-boomers" were
also the flower children who believed Dr. Timothy Leary. Are we surprised
that young people who are their children would abuse prescription drugs
when TV ads say they'll will be happy if you'll only take the "purple
pill" even if they have Our young people are simply emulating what they
see as acceptable behavior by adults. Making matters worse, healthcare
in the US is not about prevention, it is more about the treatment of
symptoms. The treatment of symptoms is much more lucrative than preventative
medicine. Treatment of symptoms is a lengthy, expensive process. Prevention
usually begins with the patient simply making affordable lifestyle changes.
Be it diet, exercise or a combination of both, prevention does not line
as many pockets. |
| Banking
On The Dollar
"In recent years, most companies were forced to absorb the higher costs of basic expenses like employee health care, raw materials and energy, focusing on squeezing more efficiencies from their workers and machines. But now, from airlines to manufacturers of advanced plastics, many businesses are overcoming their fears of losing customers and are starting to pass on cost increases. (New York Times) => Corporate America's Perspective: => Society Perspective: => Ravi's "One Minute" Commentary: America is becoming a third world country. We mostly export raw materials and import finished goods. Significantly more American students obtain degrees in marketing over engineering. Our "super-power" is totally dependent on labor forces of "poorer" countries...how ironic! "Made in America" used to mean something. I am pleased to see the consumer price index increase and am supportive of consistent inflation. However, if rising costs are passed on to the customer (which they should be), an increase in domestic wages better not be far behind--businesses must not take advantage of the reconditioning of Americans and price gouge. "Four year thinking" administrations shouldn't be stimulating the economy without considering the long term ramifications--how ethical is it to encourage citizens to increase debt and then raise the cost of that debt down the road? If I were President, I'd impose a federal sales tax on all goods and services--which would be included in the price tag like it is in much of Europe. This would help reset American values at the cash register. Those taxes would be returned to society in personal income tax relief, education, and social services for all legal residents, also reducing some employee costs for businesses. Additionally, I'd offer tax breaks to businesses that conduct 100% of their manufacturing and customer service between our shores, but I'd also raise the minimum wage. America shouldn't be buying more, it should be buying better. ©2005, Suburban Turban Inc. => Suburban Turban Inc. invites and encourages
you to circulate, reprint, or republish this commentary as long as the
copyright notice and bio remain attached. Your
Neighbors' Responses: The VAT type taxes are just what we have recently
voted OUT in Louisiana. No taxes on prescription drugs and no taxes
on food. These are things our poorest citizens need and cannot afford
as it is. The idea of eliminating all taxes on incomes under $60,000.00
per year appeals to me so you can bet I make less than that per year.
It is always the other guys ox we want gored, while our own sacred cow
continues to block the road. I think it is interesting that General
Motors is moving to Canada because they can no longer afford to pay
medical care costs in the US. I hope Canada sticks them for a hefty
corporate tax. The US is going to have to institute a universal one
payee medical care plan someday soon because the current medical program
makes no sense and will soon be bankrupt. We pay twice as much for medical
care, get one half the coverage and don't even have everyone insured.
The huge price difference goes to insurance companies executives. Medicare
manages using less than 5% for costs. Private insurance companies use
50% and more to cover their costs. A sizable portion of this is spent
buying Congress. We'll probably get a decent medical care play when
their house of cards collapses. Sales and value-added taxes are oppressive in
that they really effect those most who can least afford to pay. Income
tax, though reprehensible to American sensibilities, CAN be fairest
if calculated to be so. Big if. Giving breaks to companies that do their
WORK as well as their marketing in the good old USA is a fine idea. If you throw your hat in the ring and run for
President, I'll volunteer to work for your organization. I agree with
your politics!! Your tax policy suggestion is one that George
Bush and the think tanks around him advocate as well. I also agree that
it would be a better idea if the increases in a VAT were made up by
raising where the minimum income tax cutoff occurs. For example no income
tax I'm with you until the tax issue. Have you heard
of www.fairtax.org? I'm not 100% behind it, but it's a step in the right
direction. It should allow us to eliminate all Federal taxes except
a sales tax and not raise the costs of things because there is so much
tax already passed on to consumers in the finished product. After reading your
latest Culture of Integrity column, I say: RAVI FOR PRESIDENT! |
| Politically
Incorrect
"The federal government has aggressively used a well-established tool of public relations: the prepackaged, ready-to-serve news report that major corporations have long distributed to TV stations to pitch everything from headache remedies to auto insurance. In all, at least 20 federal agencies, including the Defense Department and the Census Bureau, have made and distributed hundreds of television news segments in the past four years, records and interviews show. Many were subsequently broadcast on local stations across the country without any acknowledgment of the government's role in their production...This winter, Washington has been roiled by revelations that a handful of columnists wrote in support of administration policies without disclosing they had accepted payments from the government. But the administration's efforts to generate positive news coverage have been considerably more pervasive than previously known. At the same time, records and interviews suggest widespread complicity or negligence by television stations, given industry ethics standards that discourage the broadcast of prepackaged news segments from any outside group without revealing the source. An examination of government-produced news reports offers a look inside a world where the traditional lines between public relations and journalism have become tangled, where local anchors introduce prepackaged segments with 'suggested' lead-ins written by public relations experts. It is a world where government-produced reports disappear into a maze of satellite transmissions, Web portals, syndicated news programs and network feeds, only to emerge cleansed on the other side as "independent" journalism." (New York Times) => Corporate America/Government Perspective: => Society Perspective: => Ravi's "One Minute" Commentary: ©2005, Suburban Turban Inc. => Suburban Turban Inc. invites and encourages
you to circulate, reprint, or republish this commentary as long as the
copyright notice and bio remain attached. Your
Neighbors' Responses: Well said! Having produced scores of video news
releases (VNRs) for Fortune 500 companies, I was shocked to hear our
tax dollars are funding government agencies’ production of them
– and that local TV newsroom staffs were airing them as bonafide
“news reports”. Having also been a reporter, anchor and producer
involved in hundreds of TV newscasts, it seems to me that such blatant
“propaganda” would raise a red flag with anyone who’s
passed Journalism 101! (Although, I admit, I have never sat in a journalism
class in my life.) Perhaps the flood of VNRs for years now from pharmaceutical
companies, toymakers and software manufacturers have paved the way,
lulling America’s mostly young, relatively inexperienced TV producers
to sleep. If so, I hope they’re awakening now! Yes, my friend, government propaganda disguised
as independent news is Goebel's Thanks so much for your newsletters. They're
wonderful. After the last election I am not letting up. We were cheated
again. I was in Florida driving voters to the polls. Anyway, I am involved
with a group started by Howard Dean call democracy for America. His
brother Jim, is now running it. They're some wonderful people and now
that dean is chair of the DNC we are getting quite strong and listened
to by politicos all over the country. The website is democracyforamerica.com.
I am here in New York City. I believe you are in New Orleans still.
If they don't have a chapter there- start one. You're perfect. "Perhaps Mr. Putin is a step ahead of us
"pawns" in the bureaucrat's game of chess." I'm saying that our government has more of a role in influencing, intimidating, inserting, and therefore controlling the information received by American citizens. I'm not saying Rather was right, but clearly the relationship between the government and our news organizations is perhaps a little too close for comfort. This is not a "Republican" issue either, as these practices we common under Clinton as well. I think the press is historically left wing, although Fox news has very much evened the playing field. I believe most people are honest and good. Otherwise
civilization would be reduced to anarchism. I think our media is worse
now because it is primarily owned by big corporations that slant the
news in their direction even before the White House presents managed
news. As an example, have YOU ever read an article by Robert Scheer
in a major news article? Have you read an article in a major news media
mentioning that there was an article in the AMA Medical Journal recommending
universal one-payee medical insurance? I can send you a copy of the
article if you wish. Try reading "Utne Reader" to get a real
look at news. We should be aware of when media itself becomes the government. (Remember Max Headroom? Remember what a serious indictment it was of media itself in that respect? Remember how after it was so successful, ABC bought and killed it?) But then, the political opposition is doing the
same thing (regardless of which of the two principal political parties
is in power), Tweedle Dum pointing at Tweedle Dee and vice-versa. |
| America
the Prude-iful
"On the first anniversary of the Super Bowl wardrobe malfunction that shook the world, it's clear that just one (breast) was big enough to wreak havoc. The ensuing Washington indecency crusade has unleashed a wave of self-censorship on American television unrivaled since the McCarthy era, with everyone from the dying D-Day heroes in "Saving Private Ryan" to cuddly animated animals on daytime television getting the ax. Even NBC's presentation of the Olympics last summer, in which actors donned body suits to simulate "nude" ancient Greek statues, is currently under federal investigation." (New York Times) => Corporate America's Response: => Society's Response: => Ravi's "One Minute" Commentary: ©2005, Suburban Turban Inc. => Suburban Turban Inc. invites and encourages
you to circulate, reprint, or republish this commentary as long as the
copyright notice and bio remain attached. Your
Neighbors' Responses: I'm a 45 year old white male who served in the
U.S. Army for 10 years before I got out all together. Needless to say,
it sucked like a marriage gone bad. But anyway, I'm always trying to
get my live-in girl friend to move out of the country. Probably to Canada.
2nd choice, Brazil. I'm fed up w/ this country. All's they do is take
and lie to us. Both the Republicans & the Democrats. I'm an American.
Not by choice. There's allot of good people here. But there are a lot
of nuts here too. And the nuts are all in office running the show. America,
in it, but not of it!!! And those so called, " Proud to be an American",
types,. Get a clue. You people should look up, " Skull and Bones"
,on the inter net for starters. Now, there you go again! Compared to Europe,
our TV is pretty tame, BUT, who can hold Europe up as a good example!
They are falling apart by the minute, crime is coming to the continent,
big time. I hate the Mafia HOB show, really terrible, but it is on cable,
and a big success, so was Sex in the City, but I do not think that we
would want our children to grow into any of those characters. What children
watch can really affect what they believe to be normal, look what has
happened to the "Urban" music market, they have just about
wiped out marriage in the younger African/American community, creating
the next layer of children who will have very little to go by as examples
of achievement, other than rappers who have made millions selling sex
and violence! So, somewhere along the way, a little nudge back to a
more civil society is not too much to endure. As you know, this new
wave of "concern" will not last long, just as long as it takes
to look at the "bottom line" and see that the money is not
coming in as fast from the same sources as before! So, let us set February
17, 2006 to check this out again. First off, thanks for sending over these. I'm
kind of a novice, but they're generally an enjoyable read. I appreciate
your sincerity. However, I must vigorously protest the following, found
in your "One Minute Commentary" of a couple of days ago: "I...
feel that non-socially responsible artists* who exist primarily to take
advantage of the public rather than educate and inspire society should
be censored..." Yo Ravi, what the f...?! You're one of the good
guys, remember? Here's a rule of thumb that I've found useful: good
guys don't censor. Ever. Neverevereverever. And forbidding people from
shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater is not censorship; no
red herrings allowed. Censorship involves political, social or cultural
expression. This is a big deal over here in France, where it's illegal
to deny the holocaust, or to sing the praises of Hitler, for example.
While some of the people who support these laws may be of the best intentions,
they have forgotten this simple rule: good guys don't censor. And here's
why-- the most important question you need to ask about censorship is:
Who's next? What, soon we won't be allowed to write songs advocating
the mass extermination of Chihuahuas? Why not? They're frankly among
the most obnoxious, useless creatures on the planet. And don't forget
Most Important Question n° 2: Who decides? According to your "One
Minute Commentary", it won't be by "government intimidation."
Who then? You? Why not me? I personally believe that I'd make a GREAT
censor, but something tells me that not everybody would share that opinion,
certain subversive elements evidently not having total faith in my superior
judgment, lord knows why. The deal is this: human beings are fundamentally
greedy, mean and stupid, and the scum always rises to the top. You could
put Mother Theresa in charge of the censorship committee and she'd find
a way to screw up. Besides, if parents would just do what the hell they're
supposed to do, namely, BE PARENTS, none of this would pose any great
big problems. Instead of censorship, I advocate a mandatory PPEE. You
know, the Potential Parent Equivalency Exam. It's a test we make everybody
who wants to have babies take, and I get to write up the test. And NO
ONE is allowed to take it before they're 25 years old. What the hell,
make that 30. And if you fail, you have to wait 5 years before you can
try again, during which time you must spend at least 20 hours a week
volunteering at a day-care center for small infants. Actually, I agree with you about censorship. What I essentially said was that censorship should naturally evolve by the public refusing to support what they disagree with. If media channels (Corporate America) decide what they will broadcast (as opposed to Government regulation or intimidation), the public will ultimately show whether or not they approve by their support, or lack of support, of that company's products and/or services. To me, that is an acceptable (and natural) form of censorship, because it creates an opportunity for the public to truly decide what is acceptable and what is not. Those who control the media channels will then ultimately be forced (by the nature of business) to choose their programming on the basis of public acceptability. You and I are in major agreement about parenting, as I fully believe that poor parenting is at the root of most problems. That being said, however, today's parents were yesterday's badly raised children. So, how can they learn? We need some corporate responsibility to teach them. Why corporate? Because they are the loudest and most influential voice. Second to that are artists. However, artists are all too often compromising that opportunity by catering to corporations, who are catering to the lowest common denominator, who are the badly raised parents and their badly raised children. It's a bad cycle, and will take some serious muscle to turn it around. I think money and morality can mix, but only in a more socialistic society or a truly healthy capitalistic society; not the corporate dictatorship that exists today in America. Actually, I did mean "non socially responsible artists"
because I believe there is a big gray area between that and "socially
irresponsible artists." When it comes to art, I think it is easier
to determine who is clearly "responsible" than clearly "irresponsible." (Follow up response from a 35 year old corporate
payroll supervisor from Connecticut USA) Of course, you are absolutely right. My purpose in phrasing it this way is to suggest to those who are pro censorship that the same results will ultimately happen in a capitalistic society, and will more accurately represent what the public wants, as the American public speaks the loudest when using their wallets (or credit). However, I think that Corporate America needs to initially offer things that they can stand behind with integrity, rather than trying to appeal to and grow the lowest common denominator of society. The short version is: An industry is willing to self-regulate until it thinks someone else that's not regulated is starting to take their profit (or market) away. You wrote: "[...] I am an advocate of artistic responsibility, and therefore do feel that non-socially responsible Artists who exist primarily to take advantage of the public rather than educate and inspire society should be censored, but not by government intimidation. Corporate America must make its "channel content" decisions based on artistic value and socially responsible merits, and the public should decide whether or not to support these companies based on their own values and reactions." Well, there was such a thing at one time. To quote an article at: http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6558/ "Although Congress held its first hearing
on the subject in 1952, they chose not to take any action to interfere
with the industry, in part So what happened? Basically, the NARTB self-regulation
went out the window when cable TV became common and was (somehow) not
expected to abide by similar standards as broadcast TV and radio. In
the beginning stages, cable was seens as not being "private"
and accessible only to the few who would pay for it; the broadcast airwaves
still seen traditionally as belonging to the "public," whether
or not used by commercial enterprises. Satellite TV and radio compounded
the situation presented by cable TV, and media broadcast by airwaves,
fearing ultimate loss of audience to these "private" means
of propagation, kind of, well, I couldn't bring myself to watch the Super Bowl
this year, just knowing there wasn't a chance of seeing a breast. Thanks
for another great article. Last year's Superbowl show was hardly an accident.
The narcissism, selfishness and amorality of USA society idols has gotten
out of hand and allowing such unvalues to be transmitted to our children
would be a catastrophe. With generations of girls be tipped into anorexia
(NO, this is neither the only nor main cause but a trigger) by Barbie-doll
and twiggie unachievable goals, with generations of boys aspiring to
be rogues, we have a problem. As I said: Once every American boy dreamed
of being president, now many dream of being a successful rapist and
the smarter ones dream of both. How sadly right I was. Scary censorship
is not an answer. Family values are. The power to turn off that TV set
(or better, toss it!) is more effective than a government witchhunt.
If folks stay away from the movie-house, the peddlers of egoism and
amorality will get the message where it counts--in the wallet. Artistic
responsibility needs be shared with audience responsibility. (Follow up response from 50 year old musician
from Louisiana USA) The point of it, to me is that this was not needed
on her part, and was no accident. Personally I enjoyed seeing her boob!
The problem I had was that I didn't like my children being exposed to
it on a "family" program. I think PBS which can easily be
seen by children, should be edited. I have no problem with it on HBO.
I think the whole damn channel and NPR should be liberated of my tax
money!!! What do you think of the Ward Churchill affair? I believe in
free speech, but strongly object to our tax dollars being used to brainwash
our children in state colleges by calling normal Americans "Little
Eichmans." You can say what you want, but not when I'm paying you
to teach my child, especially if it is a lie.............You're a good
man, keep up the good work! I think the Ward Churchill thing is actually good. I don't necessarily agree with him, but the basis for his radical thoughts is valid, even if he has taken it way off course. Sometimes it takes people to be that extreme just to get people debating some important issues, and his overall take on indigenous populations is something that the younger generation is not exposed to enough. Too many kids today first equate native American Indians with casinos! We get to hear the Government's side of the Iraq war and other policy 24/7. Guys like Churchill at least force an opposing view into the conversation, which ultimately leads everyone to higher understanding. I think the worst use of tax dollars in terms of brainwashing is not in state colleges, but the rhetoric our Government (not just the Bush administration, and not just Republicans) imposes upon the public through controlled (and intimidated, hence my current topic in the newsletter) media. Sadly, I have to agree with you, though Janet
Jackson's publicity stunt was shallow and silly, for it to cause free-speech
repression is absurd. |
| Church
& State
Following an election that was heavily influenced by religion, it
is increasingly obvious that "Separation of Church and State"
is a myth. => Ravi's "One Minute" Commentary: ©2005, Suburban Turban Inc. => Suburban Turban Inc. invites and encourages
you to circulate, reprint, or republish this commentary as long as the
copyright notice and bio remain attached. Your
Neighbors' Responses: I just checked out your website, and have to
give you some props for attempting to engage people in conversation
about some of things that are going on in our country right now. A few
comments, if I may, about your ruminations on the separation of church
and state. You wrote: "Furthermore, of the 55 people who worked
on the constitution, 52 were evangelical Christians. The founding fathers
probably intended America to be a Christian nation, as this was a country
of Christians. Therefore, constitutionally, there is nothing wrong with
religious influence in our government, no more than that of any other
lobby. Ironically, one could even argue that the Constitution protects
Christians' right to influence government." I'd say the first amendment,
in stating that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." intended
to do just that: prevent the establishment of any state endorsed religion.
That the Constitution has no overt references to God further backs that
up. There are references to a Creator, but they were deliberately left
very vague. That our founding fathers envisioned a wall of separation
between church and state is buoyed not only by the Adams quote you mentioned,
but by Lincoln's comments during the signing of a treaty with Tripoli,
at which time he stated ". . . the government of the United States
is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; . . ."
I'm not sure what your source is for stating that 52 of the 55 signers
were evangelicals, but that's definitely not true. A number were Protestant,
a couple catholic, but generally they were Deists. (Jefferson and Paine
were Deists, Adams Unitarian.) Their beliefs didn't remotely resemble
those of today's Evangelicals. So I think if you look back historically,
it seems to me very clear that they intended for church and state to
be very separate. Just my two cents. My source for the 52 of 55 reference is: M.E. Bradford, A Worthy Company: Brief Lives of the Framers of the United States Constitution (Marlborough, N.H.: Plymouth Rock Foundation, 1982), p. 4-5. Here's a good reference for you presenting an
alternative viewpoint on the founding fathers. Try this one: The Founding
Fathers and the Place of Religion in America - Frank Lambert, Princeton
University Press, 2003. You can read the first few pages of the introduction
at Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0691088292/qid=1107380923/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-8685953-7146310?v=glance&s=books.
It seems to draw a sharp distinction between the initial settlers in
the US in the 1600s, who were extremely religious, and the framers of
the Constitution who held a variety of beliefs, were very influenced
by the Enlightenment, and designed the separation of church and state
very deliberately, in part so that each person could worship in accordance
with their conscience. I noticed the Bradford book is published by the
Plymouth Rock Foundation, so it's less surprising to me that his point
of view favors the original colonial settlers, who were on a very different
wavelength than the framers of the constitution. Interesting, eh? I sure hope the democrats are able to block Bush's
nominees to the courts so that they don't force their "values"
on the whole nation whether we agree w/ them or not. Living in Boston
during the whole church scandal has shown us here that blindly following
the lead of people dealing in "morality" can be a dangerous
thing. I think peoples consciousness' are too complicated to fit in
to the "us vs. them" mentality that the current administration
would like to compartmentalize everyone into. What we need are critical
thinkers who can look past of the the rhetoric & hype being blasted
at us. Keep up the good work. Thanks again. You always manage to touch on some
of my favorite subjects and we agree. I was taught religion in home
and at Church, which is where it should be. I don't want politicians
for their theological issues and I don't want religious leaders with
a political agenda. Our constitution is an improvement over the conflicting
issues presented in the Bible. What more could you ask for? The framers
of the Constitution were wise beyond their years and this wonderful
document has provided the greatest moral framework. Let us respect their
goals and carry on their work and this country will once again lead
the world. And something like 40 million dollars to Faith
Based Groups last year. Unbelievable! Tax the churches! I'm impressed with your research, rhetoric and
responsibility. I couldn't agree more. Well done and well said--from
one lawyer to one who may yet, and perhaps should, become one! I enjoyed
reading your responses to the JayZ issue too. Very interesting. I don't like Dr. Dobson's remarks (or most of
Christian radio) any more than the next girl. They use scare tactics
and threats to keep the money rolling in, which I personally think is
probably not what Jesus would do. Anyway, because of the separation
of church and state, folks living in the US are allowed to worship whatever
and whomever they want. But please don't ask us to roll back the Constitution
so those who don't believe in God can feel more comfortable--they chose
to come here by their own free will. It would be the same as if I moved
to Russia and tried to force the government to make English the national
language so I didn't have to deal with people who spoke Russian. That's
my opinion at least. Thanks for your comments. I do think that there should be a stronger
separation of church & state only so that our law making policies
are not monopolized by any single "group," as is the apparent
motivation of Dobson, and arguably the results of the past election.
What makes this country great are the vast differences amongst its citizens
- cultural, religious, etc. - and I think that our laws should be made
"separate" of those differences, other than enforcing the
protection of people's freedom of religious and cultural expression,
or lack of. I don't believe that court justices should be appointed
on religious "value" merits, but rather upon objective interpretations
of the law. Also, I am not in favor of rolling back the Constitution,
not for this or for putting an Austrian in the Oval Office. However,
if we are going to make ammedments, I think the most important ones
should be to ensure that our government governs with all citizens in
mind. 1. There is no "separation of church and
state". The US Constitution prohibits respecting a religious establishment
as THE establishment or prohibiting free expression of religion. |