Adam miller's Open Salon Blog

When You Wish Upon a Cog

Thu, 26 Jan 2012 14:01:11 -0500

In the wake of Apple’s record-setting quarter, a lot of pundits—well, a lot of people—have criticized the computer giant for manufacturing its products in China. The American company should be creating American jobs, the refrain goes. Many, if not all the people crying foul are liberal and well-educated, i.e. the sorts of people who have never and would never work in on an assembly line, not if you bribed them with a new iPhone 5 and 6. People like Salon’s Andrew Leonard. So here’s my question: If working long hours on an Apple assembly line, undertaking the Sisyphusian task of trying to satiate the global demand for a smart phone, sounds like a circle of hell, why do you at the same time believe that an Apple manufacturing job could solve anyone’s problems?

Nearly any Chinese laborer employed by Apple will claim to be grateful for the job. On the other hand, nearly any North Korean will claim to be grateful for Kim Jong Un’s dynamic leadership. Hyperbolic? Sure. But when we speak of progress and welfare, do we really mean a society where maybe half the population has their noses to the grind?

Or maybe it’s fear that drives the sentiment that America needs to rebuild its manufacturing sector. We occupy this crumbling, quasi-imperial position which allows many of us to work 9-5 at quasi-useful sinecures. It’s plain to see that times are changing, that we may soon be enslaved by a race of giant ants if we’re not careful. The only problem is that by preemptively digging trenches, we have to dig and live in trenches, which is not in the end so different from giant ant enslavement.

Way back in high school, I learned that during the Great Depression farmers were ordered to destroy stores of food to bolster crop prices, even as Americans were homeless and starving. We have a long history of confusing economic welfare and human welfare. Part of this has to do with a Hobbsian bent that dictates we let people starve rather than provide handouts, because humans are innately evil and lazy and if you give them free food they will become full-time bums. I don’t know how much food America produces on a daily basis these days, though I do know we have a lot of vacant homes lying around, and an excess of stuff in general. But even though people are suffering it wouldn’t do to give these things away, no, we require that more roundabout distribution vehicle called labor, which is why it’s so important we win back those manufacturing jobs from China, at any cost, even if it means slashing wages and slackening environmental regulations.

That people must work for a living has lead to some irrational decisions, to say the least. As unemployment numbers rise, not once has anyone considered that with rapidly improving automation technology (see Redbox video rental machines, automated car factories, the ATM), fewer and fewer humans are needed to perform frankly mundane jobs. This should be a good thing—something sci-fi fans have been dreaming about for the past century—but, because of our values, this lack of chores is actually causing a worldwide crisis. One logical solution to our labor shortage would be to slash hours where possible and better distribute what job hours do exist and are useful. Note I say useful, because people are frequently put to useless tasks in the name of livelihood. We have trouble transitioning away from not only useless but harmful industries because shuttering factories costs jobs and we lack the infrastructure (physical and moral) to provide for people out of work.

But people do want (need?) iPhones and many humans are still required to produce them, or at least I suspect that’s the case. You never know with Apple. Is it really fair, though, that people are made to work ungodly hours performing repetitive, machine-like tasks to make your phone? Does it make you feel good about your purchase? I’m racked with guilt about it, honestly. I likely made as much as ten of these workers combined at my last job and I would have gladly given most of it away to not work in an Apple factory, or any other factory for that matter. I view these laborers the same way I view front-line Marines. If people really are needed to produce iPhones, I’d feel much better about the whole business if we all took turns working, say, twenty hour weekly shifts. Oh, I know many of those factory jobs are highly skilled and we lack the know-how stateside, but we could learn. We could learn to farm, too, to plumb, to suture wounds. To raise children. Divide and conquer. At least a little, to take the edge off.

My point with all this is that all these talks of job creation are a sham. They distract from our very human desire to not become automatons, and the very real inequality that forces some people to either languish in unemployment or work day and night at soul-crushing jobs, which sounds a lot like being stuck between a rock and a hard place. How liberal intellectuals can wish assembly-line jobs, at least as they exist today, on others, is beyond me.

Free Tampons

Wed, 11 Nov 2009 11:11:52 -0500

My wife related a story to me the other day. When she was living at home, her father had asked that she buy her own sanitary pads. Furious, she had told him they were no different than toilet paper -- she didn't have a choice in how much she bled, after all.

So, being a woman means assuming some extra burdens. Carrying a child is foremost of these. The "right to choose," as it's now called, has come into the limelight again thanks to two nasty ammendments added to the health bill in the House -- in particular the Stupak ammendment, named after the conservative congressman.

But you know all this. My purpose in writing this post is to draw attention to the language we use to discuss abortion, and why it's all wrong. The movement should have never been called "pro-choice," because this obscures the core issue at hand -- a woman's citizenship. Just as when the women received the right to vote, the abortion issue is a women's citizenship issue. If a woman cannot conveniently and freely receive an abortion, she is not a full citizen. For that matter, her birth control should be free as well (they already suffer the unfair burden of having to take the stuff). If you're a man and don't see how that benefits you, you're an idiot.

Let me relate another anecdote. A coworker of mine recently had a child. Maternity leave, as you may know, is quite short in this country. Her situation is such that working from home would be of great benefit to her, and given the nature of our work, entirely feasible. In fact, several employees work from home for various reasons. But she's afraid to confront our boss, because she too timid to ruffle anyone's feathers. Never mind that her child's health is at stake.

As a woman, my coworker is granted all the rights of any other American worker, though not so many extra rights to accomodate her femininity (in this case the fact that she is a mother). What's worse, she doesn't feel entitled to any "preferential treatment." Again, never mind that she is saddled with the burden of raising a child.

By the way -- everyone at my job is more or less liberal. Despite this, our notions of responsibility are hardly communal. My coworker's baby is her problem, right? If she wants to take a year or two off, she shouldn't burden the company, which needs to be profitable and productive, right? Sadly, we (by which I mean men and women0 are content to let women quietly deal with their womenly problems, often for petty reasons. Maybe we're uncomfortable with breast feeding or buying tampons. Maybe we think a company should be allowed to shirk the expense of employing a pregnant woman. Of course, some truly believe a woman is a woman first, and a citizen second, often for religious reasons.

The fact that simply being a woman -- an act necessary for the future of our species, not to mention our present happiness -- is a quandry, is obscene. Though women have decades ago gained citizenship, it is still hard to be a woman and a citizen -- femininity must still be suppressed to succeed, or feminity allowed and success abandoned. This problem extends beyond concrete issues like abortion -- it is a matter of gender identity. But, insofar as politics is concerned, the abortion issue has to begin and end with the question: Do we consider women to be full citizens?

So You Think You Can Dance: The Only Humane Reality Show

Wed, 4 Nov 2009 12:11:19 -0500

Reality TV is notoriously awful. Worse, it's nasty. Project Runway, for example, features some truly talented designers. But the way the show is spliced together, you'd think they were all out to tear each other to shreds. Maybe they are. The judges are worse -- Heidi Klum in particular revels in hyperbole, calling a pretty dress with some extra zippers "completely over the top" and snorting/snickering. That's what passes for constructive criticism these days?

American Idol, of course, holds the crown for nastiness and hyperbole. It's not just what the judges do and say, though, but the spirit of the show that wreaks. It's fame-centric, mired in pleasing the least common denominator.

So You Think You Can Dance was created as the mid-summer fill-in for idol. It was never meant to succeed on any grand scale. And yet, now occupying a prime fall slot, the show's proving that not only does it make most excellent television, that it can succeed without falling back on any of the gimmickery that plagues most reality television.

Let's start with the dancing. Whereas Idol is conservative, to the point where Adam Lambert's Queen rehashes were considered avant garde by the judges, Dance is with it. I'm into the music scene in a big way (you know, I read Pitchfork and stuff), and am always impressed when I hear a remix of some song that's been out for a week. The dances themselves are wild -- to the point where you could see some of those moves being imitated in the clubs (where as everything on Idol is an imitation). In short, Dance respects our intelligence, sophistication, and emotional and sexual maturity.

Last night's numbers included a gospel revival, Van Gough painting come to life to haunt the painter, Argentinian tango, hip hop tennis match, and an emotionally wrought modern dance, among others. During a racecar/mechanic-themed hip hop number last night, Karen Hauer stood on top of Kevin Hunte's thighs and proceeded to shake her booty in his face -- making Kevin the stripper stage and the recipient of the lap dance all in one. Totally club-worthy. Of course there are more, shall we say, refined numbers as well, but you really never know what to expect.

Most important, though, are the shows judges. Nigel in particular could have imitated Simon Cowell. But he doesn't. He never overreacts with outrage to some remark by a contestant. He focuses on the postives, or gives spcecific, technical criticism (so that, you know, the viewers can actually learn something). Best of all, he's not jaded -- he will cry if he's moved by a dance. Same goes for every other judge on the show, guest judges included.

Finally, Dance shows that inane footage of contestants outside the competition is unnecessary to capture personal drama. Phillip Attmore, one of the two contestants cut last night, acknowledged that his father had passed away the previous week, and that roughly half the contestants had attended the funeral with him. Everyone, the stoic Cat Deeley included, was sobbing.

With Dance we have a show that, for the most part, has shed the worst traits of reality TV -- the false controversies, the nastiness, the hyperbole, and the dumbed-down content. Also, unlike some of the Bravo series (say, Top Chef), Dance lacks artificial constraints -- cook a meal for vegans in twenty minutes while hanging upside down, or whatever. The producers of Dance had the good sense to realicng that dancing (like cooking) is hard enough on its own. So we actually get two hours of superfluous dance and dance direction. Why would we want anything else?

Ford Profits Are Up! It's Worker's are Down!

Mon, 2 Nov 2009 12:11:10 -0500

We ride the stockmarket as if its ups and downs are in fact a cardiograph tracking our nation's health. The AP just released an article reporting that Ford's profits are up, despite analyst predictions. The article is upbeat in tone, and points out several times that Ford refused a bailout.

The key paragraph, however, comes in the middle (and is Orwelian language at its best):

"The earnings came despite an $800 million revenue drop. But Ford said it cut costs by $1 billion during the quarter, accomplished through layoffs in North America and Europe, reduced pension and retiree health care costs and improvements in productivity and product development."

So congratulations Ford, your stock price is up! You've managed, unlike the government, to spend less on health care and retirement (and I assume you're doling just as many benefits all the same, right?).

Right.

The auto industry in this country is as junked as ever. Unless, that is, we're willing to build sweat shops. I hear there's some nice real estate opening up overlooking Guantanamo Bay.

Why So Many Support Polanski

Tue, 29 Sep 2009 18:09:59 -0400

I don't know Roman Polanski, or all the details of his crime. I do know he committed a dangerous crime, and importantly, one that should not go unpunished. But I also understand why so many support the man, to the point of being angry at the country of Switzerland.

America, largely, is a country of prudes and anti-intellectuals. Mcarthyism, just like Slavery, is an unhealed wound. Violence is still committed against sexual and intellectual "deviants" in this country with shocking regularity. Nipples cause outrage where violence fails to. I could go on, but the problems in America -- problems from a Liberal point of view -- are documented every day on sites like Salon.

Of course, Liberals and Conservatives can agree that rape is bad, especially when the girl is drugged, and especially when the girl is a girl. So why, then, have so many come out in support of Polanski? It is because his arrest has tapped into a well of Liberal rage against the anti-artist anti-intellectual anti-sex streak that colors this nation -- a streak that has harmed, and that continues to harm the more "European" American citizens. Polanski is a "troubled artist," and his crime, however reprehensible, is also one of sexual "deviation" -- something most liberals have come to reflexively defend against the perceived homophobic, Christian enemy.

With this in mind, it's not who Polanski is, what he has done, or even what he symbolizes. It's just that what he is (an artist) and what he's done (sex) are the kinds of things so often unfairly persecuted in this country. He's one of us -- the dirty cop.

However, many Liberals, myself included, have undoubtedly become somewhat desensitized, and so do not experience a gut-level revulsion at Polanski's crime. It is a dark scene in an artsy movie playing at Cannes, and truth be told a twisted -- but interesting -- life beats suburb/cubicle prison and/or censored novels in a Christian bookstore any day. We delight in the darkness because it undermines what we are enslaved to perpetuate every day -- or, the values we purport to have do not beget teh world we wish to inhabit.

Should Polanski go to jail? Probably -- after all, that's why justice is blind. For all we know, he could still be raping children. But does the price of justice actually feel worth it? Of course not. We're always secretly rooting for the bad guy, the rebel, the weirdo, the creep -- the one who makes the movie worth watching in the first place.