Mondonation

I was watching YouTube yesterday, one click led to another (as so often happens when one is poking around the 'Tube) and I stumbled onto something unexpected but delightfully entertaining, "Ask a Gay Man: Denim Edition." It's funny half-because William Sled and his co-host, Stephanie, are, at moments, diverting; and funny half-because Mr. Sled is closer to a caricature of a gay man than to a real three-dimensional human being. I'm sort of unsure whether this is an act for the YouTube camera, or whether Mr. Sled has actually been constructed by combining the distilled flamin' essences of Jack McFarland, Carson Kressley, and RuPaul.

So I clicked through a few more in the Ask a Gay Man series, and found this, an introduction into a company called Mondonation. According to the company's website, Mondonation is

an experiment built around the idea that if we all share our beliefs on a daily basis, by wearing them on our bodies, they will grow in strength. This will begin to affect the people who wear their beliefs and also everyone they come into contact with. What we do is give people the opportunity to wear their beliefs. You get to choose a charity from a growing list of charities and we give your designated amount ($1, $5, $10, or $20) to that charity. So the strength of mondonation is threefold: giving money to something you believe in while wearing something you believe in while looking great in a product that is ethically made by American Apparel.

Though their webpage contains nauseatingly optimistic, reductionist lines reminiscent of answers from a Miss America pageant, or a high school MUN student's response to the query, "How might we eliminate world hunger?"^*, it is also a breath of fresh air. Mondonation's founders make no secret of the fact that theirs is both a charitable and a for-profit organization, and they hope their model will be successful enough to encourage others to consider the financial, ecological, and social benefits to establishing and supporting like-minded companies.

To me, this is really an alluring idea in that it marries western consumerism and our perpetual interest in fashion with the newly emerging social consciousness of America's younger generation. (I'm ashamed at how cynical and profit-driven this next part sounds, but) Mondonation seems to have positioned really itself well in terms of simultaneously tapping into both our selfish and selfless halves. The company is poised to develop great namebrand recognition, since its products are cool by advertising to others not only, "look how much money I could afford to spend on this shirt," (à la Abercrombie & Fitch, et al), but also, "look how charitable and philanthropic I've been by spending so much money on this shirt."

All while simultaneously giving us what we so desperately want in an age of globalization: the chance both to stand out in the crowd and to fit in with it. Their customizable "I Believe" t-shirts seize on the "Me" phenomenon, in which everyone not only has something to say, but also wants to hear the voices of those around him. (Think Youtube, MySpace, Xanga, Friendster, or this blog, for that matter. See also Time Magazine's 2006 Person of the Year for further documentation.) Moreover, it seems they are entirely cyber-based, lacking any B&M stores to which customers can go to order their apparel. Great way to save on overhead: you can just imagine Mr. or Ms. Mondonation working from home with just a spouse or a couple friends as the only employees (save the non-sweatshop seamstresses toiling away at their sewing machines).

Of course, if it really does succeed in popularizing this profit/charity business model, Mondonation's edge (it's edgi-ness and relative isolation in this market) will be lost, rendering it just another good idea snatched up and made better by someone else. And that would be a shame. I'd better order my shirt from them while I still can.

*E.g. "Mondonation began as a dream that if people begin to focus on the positive aspects of their life it will inspire others. This will create a network of people sharing beliefs and thought patterns - the Ripple Effect. The bottom line is when enough people focus their energy in a positive direction, amazing things will happen."

Or, "The clothing we wear touches our skin. Skin will absorb what it comes into contact with. To us it seems wrong to put something made in a sweatshop (full of bad karma) on our skin."

Innuendo

[Editor's note: In retrospect, this blog is MUCH less interesting than it originally seemed, but it's been sitting in the queue for so long that it seemed a shame just to delete it. Maybe I had intended to use it as a springboard for something else, but it's been so long that I hardly remember what that might have been. In any event, I am warning you that the following is neither interesting/funny nor touching/insightful, so if you'd rather, just skip to the next post.]

[IF YOU ARE ALVIN, SKIP THIS ONE REGARDLESS OF WHETHER YOU FIND IT INTERESTING. YOU MAY BE OFFENDED AT MY ANALYSIS OF YOUR ARGUMENTS, AND BECAUSE I HAVE PERSONALY RESOLVED NEVER TO RECOMMENCE THIS DEBATE WITH YOU, I DO NOT WANT TO HEAR WHATEVER REJOINDERS YOU MAY BE COOKING UP. STOP READING. MOREOVER, I CANNOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR ANY OFFENSE, INJURY, AND/OR PERSONAL SLIGHT YOU MAY INCUR AS A RESULT OF READING THIS, BECAUSE I AM WARNING YOU (FOR THE THIRD TIME) THAT YOU SHOULD STOP READING NOW.]

About a month or two ago, Alvin told me he had received a response from a job for which he had applied. He scheduled an interview just for some practice, but had no intention of accepting a job offer (which was later extended to him). This new job: a) offered a higher salary than his current position; b) had a much more organized administrative staff with more realistic project schedules; and c) was approximately on par with his current job in terms of travel distance/time to and from work. He had been griping considerably about point (b), the disorganization at his work, and last minute changes to his programming projects. Though I find it amusing to reread old posts and laugh at my own ranting, listening to Alvin drone on about his work-related problems is not at the top of my leisure activity list, so I encouraged him to take the other job. His reasons for staying were vague, but they seemed to have involved preferring the type of programming he was doing at his old job. (Again, I'm not sure how one sort of programming can be more enjoyable than another, because it all seems like pounding out html to me. Click here for more on the relationship between Alvin's interest in programming and my consequent boredom.)

So when the subject of his daily office meetings came up, I used it as an opportunity to hammer home the point that he accept the new job offer (to spare me from listening to him complain about the useless meetings, inefficiency and poor planning at his workplace). Our chat went something like this:

WheresMyRailgun: a time of meeting is coming upon me, and if I do not meet, the[n] who will meet for me? what can be accomplished without meetings.
Tomato JT: i thought you said alot can be done w/o meetings
Tomato JT: i was under the impression you reviled them for their inefficacy
WheresMyRailgun: change is coming so we must be prepared. it will come like a snail trodding through molasses, but we must be prepared for the day meetings prove their worth.
Tomato JT: at a snail's pace thru molasses, the changes will come long after you've retired or been taken to Glory but, you have chosen to work there, so more power to you.
WheresMyRailgun: But what is man's power compared to God's power. who is man that his power can save himself.
WheresMyRailgun: I must now prepare myself for the alotted time. The time ordained before I was born by he who knew me from the beginning of time.

My saying "you chose to work there" was a rhetorical move which I hoped would pursuade Alvin of his previously poor decision-making. [But, as I have already confessed, my motives for this were strickly selfish, not based on a desire to see Alvin improve his decision-making skills, improve his lot in life, and subsequently enter into a new era of personal happiness.] The other purpose of this subtle innuendo was to show him (without the overt, overbearingness of "Alvin, you make very poor decisions,") the superiority of my thinking in an argument we had just prior to the mentioning of his meeting. I discourage it, but if you want to read it, I have posted an excerpt of that part of the conversation below. Reading it will also shed light on why Alvin is communicating in that stilted, affected style.


* * * * *
WheresMyRailgun: Why do they talk so funny in the Bible
Tomato JT: I dont think they talk funny. to whom in particular are you referring?
WheresMyRailgun: Like, a lot of Job's dialog
Tomato JT: well, this conversation occured at the beginning of human history.
Tomato JT: shakespeare wrote just 400 years ago
Tomato JT: and look how differently HE used language
Tomato JT: in comparison, i think Job actually is alot more discernable to the average reader than is shax.
WheresMyRailgun: But shakespeare's writings were read and edited.
WheresMyRailgun: Job is just talking
Tomato JT: but, you must remember, shakespeare's plays were entirely ORAL. they were delivered for aural consumption
Tomato JT: and are meant to reflect DIALOGUE between charaters
Tomato JT: so he wrote for the purpose of making it sound more or less like the actual "talking" of his day
WheresMyRailgun: But the dialogue was still edited and refined
Tomato JT: but NOT edited and refined so as to be less understandable
Tomato JT: which his writing is to us today, because of the lingual drift across the centuries
Tomato JT: i will give you another example, then:
Tomato JT: when my high school students talk today, sometimes if i werent as hip as i am, i would have difficulties understanding them because their vocabulary is different
Tomato JT: we might both use a particular word, but they use it in a very different way than i do
Tomato JT: and often the subject matter of which they speak is unfamiliar to me
Tomato JT: so take the 10 years between me and my students, and multiply that by 600-800 to reach job's day…
Tomato JT: and voila! a recipe for difficult speach.
WheresMyRailgun: It seems that everyone is very articulate back then
Tomato JT: [btw, i think editing and refining does not sufficiently explain the differences in our language, because you could give shakespeare an editorial from the NY Times (that has been edited), and he would have a hard time reading it, not because it was edited, but because our use of language is different from his.]
WheresMyRailgun: Elihu spends almost 20 versus just saying that he wants to say something
Tomato JT: maybe that is a cultural difference
Tomato JT: not necesarrily a time difference
Tomato JT: some cultures just endorse repetition as a means of communication
WheresMyRailgun: if they are verbose in the Bible, we must be verbose
WheresMyRailgun: for many words that were said have been said by those who said them
Tomato JT: i dont think we need to be verbose.
Tomato JT: they mourn in sack cloth and ashes
Tomato JT: we dont need to do that
WheresMyRailgun: but those are the clothing of that day. who, if cold, would not addorn cloth to warm him. and if he has not cloth, then will God not clothe him.
Tomato JT: no, sack cloth was not typically worn
Tomato JT: it was a very low grade material, used for bags and things, worn only when one was mourning

Waste not, Want not

Pam and I arranged for her to give me a tour of USC today (with the hope that I will be admitted into the Masters of Professional Writing program there, and that I would therefore need eventually to orient myself on campus). Deciding that it would be imprudent to don my favorite jacket (a grey hoodie from my alma mater, UCLA), I resolved upon my white "I ♥ Tokyo" Adidas jacket, with a Japanese flag on the right chest…

…Which seemed like a safe choice, until I remembered that before our tour of USC, I was to pick up my passport and visa from the Chinese consulate. [If you're not in the know, Japan is not a favorite among people from the PRC, who are still smarting from the so-called "Rape of Nanjing," in which 300,000 Chinese were massacred, and 20,000 were raped (these figures are disputed by the Japanese). In fact, in China, World War II is known as "The War of Japanese Aggression."] I suppose I was bound to offend someone today, since those were the only two clean jackets I had that were appropriate for the weather.]*

* * * * * * * * * *

Anyway, Americans are is too profligate.

Today, while having lunch at a USC eatery, we saw this guy, eating Indian food. I, at Pam's suggestion, was eating a turkey avocado sandwich, but I kept eyeing the tasting looking pieces naan and the various garbanzo bean-based dips into which I could dunk them. There they were, sitting on the tray of the man at the next table, just waiting for me to gobble them up.

I wanted to go over in the guise of a cafeteria employee and ask, "excuse me, are you finished? Let me take your tray for you." Pam pointed out that he knew that I was eating at the next table, and if he didn't, he soon would when he saw me sit back down and begin consuming his leftovers. She suggested maybe it wouldn't look as weird if, after clearing his tray, I looked at my watch announced, "LUNCH TIME!" and commence eating.

Then I began to think about all those dead people—dead people who clearly have no use for their hair. Can't we take their locks, and transplant them onto balding scalps of the needy living? The bare-headed living, who could actually make use of that hair. Does it strike anyone else as egregiously wasteful…sort of like all those organs we bury or cremate. I mean, those are just body parts going to waste, and the lives of so many could be improved immeasurably if we just took the time to reuse what we were planing to throw out anyway! (Maybe this post can serve as a legal record documenting the fact that I do in fact want to be an organ donor, and that my family should proceed accordingly with my remains.)

^*Incidentally, on my first trip to China, Adrienne Lau continually yelled, "apologize! Apologize for your history!" to me on day during lunch with several recently made acquaintances. "Apologize! Apologize!" she continued to shriek, even after I explained that I wasn't alive during WWII, nor had my parents even been born at that time. All four of my grandparents lived through the war, though as US citizens kept in internment camps, not as kamakazi pilots. Finally, I couldn't take it any more. Just to placate her, I said "对不起我的历史," ("I'm sorry for my history") to our dining companions, who had no idea what I was talking about.

And speaking of Adrienne, if you happened to click on the hyperlink to her homepage, WHAT THE MONKEY?!? Did you look at her gallery? Not only did she attend both the Grammys and the Oscars, but she met Quentin Tarantino, Kanye West, Nelly, Jamie and Vivica Foxx, and David Tao. Okay, I guess the karmic retribution to balance out these injustices is that she also met and had to take a photo with Flava Flav (who looks to be about 60 in that picture). Anyway, I am going on record here as saying this is some pretty unfair junk, since (in my totally unjaundiced opinion) the quality of my writing is way above the quality of her singing. Unfair. Can we take these blogs to the studio and synthesize them too, please?

Stars

A star: "a massive, luminous ball of plasma" whose incandescence arises from nuclear fusion in its core, producing radiation which then travels outward into space. At its inception, a star is nothing more than a "collapsing cloud" of hydrogen, along with helium and a sprinkling of heavier elements. Then, after achieving sufficient density at its core, the star converts some of its hydrogen into helium through the aforementioned nuclear fusion. Energy is siphoned away from the core "through a combination of radiation and convective processes. These processes keep the star from collapsing upon itself and the energy generates a stellar wind at the surface and radiation into outer space. Once the hydrogen fuel at the core is exhausted, a star of at least 0.4 times the mass of the Sun expands to become a red giant, fusing heavier elements at the core, or in shells around the core. It then evolves into a degenerate form, recycling a portion of the matter into the interstellar environment where it will form a new generation of stars with a higher proportion of heavy elements."^*

And you thought they just twinkled in the night sky.^†

But, thousands of years ago, stars were more than huge, incandescent balls of hydrogen and helium gas spangling the evening sky. They directed sailors, providing them the means to navigate the waters free from the fear of losing their way on the nighttime seas. The ancient Egyptians used the rising of Sirius with the sun as a harbinger of the Nile's annual flooding, around which their entire agricultural system was developed, a system that provided sustenance for the world's first great civilization.


Yet even more powerfully, stars directed people's very lives. Astrologists used these heavenly bodies to tell people what their personalities would be, how long they would live, whom they should marry, when they should travel, what months looked auspicious for business. Stars governed the ungovernable. They gave people answers and ruled their lives.


And tonight, looking up into the sky, I am simply amazed at how many of these stellar sentinals, silent and sure (keeping watch in the night!), I can see. The lights here in the greater Los Angeles metropolitan region typically drown out all but a handful of the brightest stars (some of which are actually probably visible planets like Venus, but I'm so far removed from a culture that scrutinizes the stars that I can't tell a Jupiter from Zeta 1 and Zeta 2 Reticuli). Those stars that aren't being eclipsed by street lamps are usually filtered out by haze.


Yet despite the lucidity of all the stars this evening, they are telling me nothing. I wish the could give me better counsel…[Here the personal version of this entry transitions into personal events that I am neither foolish enough to post, nor arrogant enough to assume people might be interested in.]


…and sometimes, I wish I could trade this difficulty for any other. Then I suppose "maybe God already gave me one 'trade,' and I exchanged paralysis, or a degenerative heart condition, or mental retardation, or Lou Gereick's disease, or something else," and this is what I got. Or alternately, sometimes I imagine will get in a car accident, and become paralyzed, and that will put everything into perspective, that my current problem is actually really small, relative to absolute poverty, or enslavement on a plantation, etc. Then I think, "No, actually, paralysis would just be an additional, larger problem on top of my already big problem. It won't make my existing troubles any smaller. Rather, I would probably just be crushed under the weight of a double burden."

And in the end, on nights like these I feel like prayer might be little more than wishing on the stars, throwing my hopes out there to the powers that be, and wondering whether or not things will go my way.



*Wikipedia, "Stars."

†N.B. The allusion here to "Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star" is wholly appropriate (and devilishly clever). In fact, the lyrics to this popular nursery rhyme are from the poem "The Star," by 19th century poet Jane Taylor. The poem encapsulates both the Romantacists' fascination with nature and the scientific curiosity that came to govern the 19th century. Note (below) how the speaker "wonder[s]" about the essence of the star. Little would (s)he guess that it's actually a gigantic ball of hydrogen undergoing nuclear fusion billions of miles away.

"The Star"

Twinkle, twinkle, little star,
How I wonder what you are!
Up above the world so high,
Like a diamond in the sky.

When the blazing sun is gone,
When he nothing shines upon,
Then you show your little light,
Twinkle, twinkle, all the night.

Then the traveller in the dark,
Thanks you for your tiny spark:
He could not see which way to go,
If you did not twinkle so.

In the dark blue sky you keep,
And often through my curtains peep,
For you never shut your eye,
Till the sun is in the sky.

As your bright and tiny spark
Lights the traveller in the dark,
Though I know not what you are,
Twinkle, twinkle, little star.
-1806

A footnote to my footnotes

¹I have recently begun reading David Foster Wallace's collection of essays Consider the Lobster, a paradigm of journalistic excellence. Mr. Wallace marries factual, detailed reporting on a variety of topics with smart, articulate prose. (I discovered his essay "Consider the Lobster," the title piece for Wallace's own book, in the 2005 edition of Best American Essays, and subsequently went out looking for more of his work.) Clearly I have been under his influence: in addition to providing an abundance of factual and subjective glosses, Mr. Wallace has some very lengthy footnotes, some of which are two pages long, in very tiny, footnote-sized font. Some of these references have one or two footnotes of their own (I am not embellishing here); these double-feet are in nearly microscopic.

²Not to toot my own horn (okay, maybe just a little,) but the data provided in the last three entries were from very trustworthy sources (IMF, CDC, etc)^*, so the reader and I can use them with considerable confidence. I did not have to go poking around the 'web for figures that would corroborate my opinions; I merely took them from the sources I deemed most reliable. From this, we can infer that I am (as usual,) right, and that the facts have born this out.

³You the reader can have the assurance that there will always be at least a small injection of the truth into my blog entries. Should my fact-finding missions ever yield information contrary to what I expected (what a ridiculous subjunctive), I will honestly report them as such.


*Look, my own footnoted footnote! (That is, if you accept the above three points as glosses to the three preceding entries.) I myself sometimes worry about the veracity of the content of my favorite information source, Wikipedia. But check out this article from the Economist! Though the correspondent expresses some reservations about Wikipedia, on the whole the review is quite approbative.

Last Dance with "Karl"

Alright, so clearly I have an obsession with proving "Karl" wrong; perhaps because I resolved not to reopen our dispute over capitalism & corporations, blogging is my only outlet for the refutation of his insufferably fallacious arguments. But, I promise, this is my last dance with Karl, at least for this year. I also promise this installment will be blessedly short.

First, I found it odd that someone so opposed in principle to capitalism and the corporate machine in practice works for a company that grossed $54,848,000,000 (just under $55 billion) in 2006, earning it slot number 26 on Fortune 500's list of America's largest corporations by revenue^* (putting it just below Procter & Gamble and Dell, but above giants like Costco, Morgan Stanley, and Pfizer).

Second, Karl, in his newfound quest to empower the oppressed masses, has developed a fixation with the cost of foodstuffs as an unfair and disproportionately heavy burden on the shoulders of the working poor (no definition given of "poor"). In particular, he has been focusing on the fast-food industry (no doubt informed by his recent viewing another documentary, Super Size Me), which he claims is both convenient and unfairly cheap. This odious combination, Karl says, proves too alluring to single mothers working 10-12 hour shifts just to make ends meet. Exhausted from the day's work, in this prosaic hypothetical, she opts not for the grocery store, but heads straight to McD's, whose fast, friendly service and ubiquitous franchises are the flame to this weary moth. The pricing scale here at McDonald's (which, incidentally, ranked 109th on the Fortune 500, a full 83 spots and $34,388,000,000 behind Karl's own employer^†) induces her to buy, not grilled chicken McSalads for herself and two children, but three double quarter-pounder (with cheese!) meals, complete with french fries slathered in transfats, and diabetes-inducing Coke-a-colas. It should be mentioned here that in this version of reality, the higher cost of the healthy foods is governed not by the laws of supply and demand, but by McDonald's malicious motive: to see that those at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder are not just impoverished, but beset by heart disease, hypertension, arterial plaque, type II diabetes, and obesity. Somehow, the extra difficulties and associated costs of keeping fresh salads, well...fresh, and of the need to ship smaller deliveries more frequently (relative to frozen fries and hamburger patties) do not factor into their added cost to consumers.

From here Karl breaks out into his chorus of "tofu is so expensive, I mean, it's like four bucks for a small block, like this big [indicates size with hands]. Who's gonna pay that, when they can get a quick, cheap meal at McDonald's for the same price? I mean, comm'on." This is followed by several verses enumerating the things he purchased recently at the grocery store, complete with prices, fat and cholesterol content, and percent of recommended daily caloric intake. And the show's big closer: "I think the government should really do something about this."^‡

"We have nutrition and health classes from kindergarten all the way up through high school," I point out. (And bear in mind, my elementary school was not in the most affluent part of town.) "This is the government teaching its citizens how to eat responsibly and healthfully. The government can't force people to eat their veggies. Once people know what they should do, it's up to them to make their own choices. And we do have programs like WIC and food stamps to supplement the incomes of the working poor. And you're assuming that if that overworked woman had the time and money, she would elect to find a healthier alternative, but that isn't necessarily true. There are plenty of fat rich people in this country." (See charts at the bottom of this entry.)

I fear I have presented myself as more opposed to some of Karl's viewpoints than I actually am. In fact, I admire his concern for the economically marginalized, and I commend him for his work with underprivileged youth. Nonetheless, I find his presentation of certain ideas unpalatable, and solutions like "I think the government should really do something about this," aren't fleshed out enough to warrant serious response or action. My biggest complaint is that his views are so one-sided and ill-presented.^α (Okay, please no snickering here, because although I might also have one-sided views, I am aware of that, and try to hedge my arguments accordingly.)

To end this fun series, I have two more of my now-famous-and-beloved charts, created from information I found while writing "By Leaps and Bounds." The data is from Obesity in America, which in turn got it from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), a fairly reliable source of information. The charts might be a little confusing, so I'll give an example of how to read the first one: 34.34% of people whose household income was <$20,000 were are overweight, compared to 38.02% of people with household incomes of >$75,000. You can see that the data does not bear out Karl's hypothesis that poverty is highly correlated with higher levels of fastfood eating (at least as measured by obesity). In fact, among all the weight groups, the percents falling in the underweight, healthy, overweight, and obese catergories are nearly identical (with the exception that >$75,000 have fewer obese people, but this is compensated by their larger share in the overweight group).


*Fortune 500 list, 2006. (ranks 1-100)

†Fortune 500 list, 2006. (ranks 101-200)

‡Okay, so maybe I exaggerated about the cholesterol, et al, levels, but it did seem like alot of listing to me. And, in Karl's defense, earlier this year I heard similar complaints on public radio. KPCC's John Rabe interviewed Antronette Yancey, M.D., M.P.H, director of UCLA's School of Public Health Center to Eliminate Health Disparities in a segment aired on both Morning Edition and All Things Considered. She actually describes some of the phenomena Karl did, though with anecdotal evidence and a master of public health to back it up. (Interview here). Nonetheless, the report concludes that cheap, high quality produce is available in poor neighborhoods, albeit convenient transportation to and from the stores offering it is not. If transit service is the issue, I am all in favor of improving southern California's public transportation.

α For example, Karl asserted multinational corporations are evil, because they force people in third world countries to take low-paying jobs with no benefits. While this might be true, he didn't even acknowledge (let alone respond to allegations) that workers in those factories have opted to take the jobs offered to them because they paid better than the alternatives, which in many cases include unemployment. (And a low-paying job is generally better than NO job).

In Defense of Capitalism, II (or "Why Karl is Still Wrong")

Before embarking on what might sound regrettably akin to the panegyrical blatherings of a free-market ideologue, I should provide a couple caveats. First, I probably have presented myself in the previous piece (and may portray myself again here) as a sort of Friedmannian, unreserved capitalist zealot. I am a big fan of the Invisible Hand, but I am also in favor of certain types of government intervention into the market system. For example, I think it's good that firearms cannot be sold to those whose criminal records include certain types of violent felonies; it's good that many types of medication cannot be sold without a prescription; it's good that tobacco and alcohol cannot be purchased by people under the ages of 18 and 21, respectively. It's also good that intellectual property is protected by law, good that binding contracts are enforceable by law, and good that both corporate conflict of interest and insider-trading a proscribed by law. I'm also in favor of taxes to raise capital collectively for projects we could not fund individually: paving roads; building schools; raising a police force; providing for the common defense (maintaining the armed forces); &c. Second, I am not so enamored with capitalism as to be under the delusion that it is without fault. I admit: it is not a perfect system, and continues to require fine-tuning to improve it.

* * * * * * * * * *
That being said, I will soon begin an account of the moral achievements enabled by capitalism, after showing the practical benefit (i.e. generation of wealth) in the previous entry. But first, I want to return to one more piece of evidence of a pragmatic nature: Communist (with a capital "C") states. States formerly of a Marxist persuasion include Albania (until 1990), Afghanistan (until 1992), Angola, Bulgaria (until 1989), Cambodia (until 1993), Chile, the Republic of Congo (until 1992), Czechoslovakia (1989), East Germany (until Nov 9, 1989), Ethiopia (1991), Hungary (until 1989) , Moldova (until 1991), Mongolia (until 1990), Mozambique (until 1990ish), Nicaragua (until 1990), Poland (until 1989) , Romania (until 1989), the USSR (until Dec 26, 1991), PDR Yemen (until 1990), and Yugoslavia (until 1991). The theme here, other than the years between 1989 and 1992 inclusive were none too kind to the proletariat, is that all of these places eventually threw off their red hats, either through freely held elections or revolution. Why? Because Marx's promises couldn't deliver the goods they promised.

And take a look at the five remaining avowed Communist (capital C) states: Cuba, DPRK, Laos, the PRC, and Vietnam. The penultimate member of that quintet, having posted double-digit GDP growth for four consecutive years—and an average annual GDP rate of 9.4% for the past 25 years—is blasting ahead at a pace inconceivable. Due to their strict adherence to the tenets of M&M (Marx and Mao)? No, because of the liberalization of their economy and move toward market reforms, as Deng Xiao Ping recommended in his oft-quoted saying, "It doesn't matter if the cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice." Laos and Vietnam? Not looking so hot in the 22nd and 31st percentiles of per capita GDP, respectively.^* As for Cuba and the DPRK? There is a complete IMF data vacuum for both countries, but we can infer with confidence that the figures for both would be somewhere between ghastly and abysmal. (And I will conjecture with less certainty that both nations keep their economic data hidden from the IMF and global community at large, at least in part, to keep themselves and their chosen economic systems from further disgrace.)

In sum: No fewer than 20 states have formally renounced the Party line in as many years; of the five nations still clinging on, three, having all but officially abandoned Communist doctrines, are Communist in name only, and the other two…well, a gentleman ought not speak so ill of anyone's Gross Domestic Problem. So toward what conclusion I am trying to lead you from these fun little romps through history and economics? (I suppose it should be fairly obvious given the title of this posting.) Actually, there are several inferences one can make from the above, so let's take them one one at a time:

1) As already suggested, the promises of Marx simply fail to materialize.
Conclusion: The shortcomings are structural, and the system as a whole is to blame.

2) (Far and away the most popular argument made by Marxists today,) The requisite conditions for the Proletariat Revolution have never been met in any of the states that have attempted to implement Marx's ideas, thus the fiascos in these states cannot be construed as failures of Communism proper. The EU, with its well-developed capitalist economies, is moving toward socialist governance, and may one day well realize the Marxist ideal.
Conclusion: No place has that has experimented with Communism met the preconditions necessary, so we still have no working models yet on which to base the success of this system relative to capitalism. We'll wait and reserve judgement. (And don't hold the EU up as some Marxist Utopia: "approaching" Communism and "at" Communism are two totally distinct states of being.)

3) Despite the absence of the prerequisites, Communism could have worked in some of the 20+ places where it fell apart, but it was plagued with tyrannical leaders, misappropriation of resources, incompetent mismanagement, and woefully ill-conceived experimental programs (think: the Great Leap Backward).
Conclusion: Okay maybe, but the fact that you need an insanely loose definition of "success" to deem any of the aforementioned attempts at Communism as "successful," should alert us that this is probably an inherent problem, not a series of unfortunate coincidences. Uniparty, absolute power-style governance precludes the sort of checks and balances that protect against the very abuses of power and fascist tendencies that plagued those now-fallen regimes. If you accept this premise, you can see that the intense concentration of power necessary to conduct a centrally planned economy frequently (or invariably) results in someone misusing his authority at the expense of the masses he's vowed to protect.

So, in (1) and (3), we see that the system is just fundamentally flawed. In (2), we have no evidence yet to draw clear conclusions, but that leads me to wonder if the conditions will ever be manifest in a way that results in Marx's prediction. If they do not, then his theories, for all practical purposes, are useless.
* * * * * * * * * *

And now, on to today's main event. Eddie commented on the preceding post that "you seem to emphasize how capitalism eventually uses self interest for the public good. Others will argue that this is not a goal of capitalism, and others will go so far as to say the good that is enacted is done so out of the realm of a capitalistic society - that people break the tenents of capitalism to do good, and that this is okay." I confessed to him that this was the "fault of my unclear prose. I do not think capitalism 'intends' to do good, nor do I think it is inherently morally superior. My point was that regardless of the intent of Smith, Friedman, et. al, the *effect* of helping improve the quality of life for so many people is good. As to "breaking the tenets" of capitalism (by which I assume you mean things like charity, and giving money to people/causes that will not repay), this is made possible only because the capitalist model generate[s] the excess wealth to be given away. More clearly, I meant to say: Capitalism produces good results, which in turn can be used for moral ends." So a note to all my assiduous readers: whenever I use the terms the "moral superiority of capitalism," or the "virtue of capitalism" this is just shorthand for "the moral ends that can be achieved with the wealth that capitalism enables us to produce."

In Money and the erosion of meaning in today’s society, Craig Gay says, “democratic capitalism has been and continues to be an astonishingly good system. No other…economic system in human history has been nearly as productive. No other system has so emancipated so many ordinary people from poverty, political oppression, and the irrationalities and inefficiencies of traditional habits and customs.”^† Here is my own version: The capitalist system has provided more economic, social, and physical benefits to a greater number of people than any other economic system, probably because it rewards hard work, and encourages innovation and invention. The Industrial Revolution, as we all know, was one of the real Great Leaps Forward for Western (than later other) nations. Wikipedia observes, "In the 19th and 20th centuries, capitalism provided the main, but not exclusive, means of industrialization throughout much of the world." Along with the Agricultural Revolution, it was responsible for the tremendous gains in human life expectancy.^‡

As in the previous post, I am trying to move beyond my own ideological allegiance to the capitalist model—although I'm sure on that account, you must consider me a miserable failure—by using empirical data…then twisting it as I see fit to bolster my claims. In other words, I'm not (always) just spouting unsubstantiated poppycock based on arbitrary predispositions; there are real, observable truths that bear out the claims I am making.

If you've made it this far, I have to congratulate you for going through what would seem to most people an egregious amount of drivel. I had a wonderfully serendipitous conversation with Michael (of Conversation with Michael), in which he sent me a picture of the Berlin Wall he altered through Photoshop. He gave me permission to use it, only asking that I give him credit, and give a link to his blog, through which you can gain access to his other photos. So, as your reward for trudging through so much text without any images, here's the photo (so apropos, no?):

If you want to see it enlarged, trying clicking on the image at right. When I saw the photo, my first thought was, "how is he offering freedom on the other side of that wall? Isn't this West Germany?" Later Michael explained to me that the picture was actually taken from the (formerly) East German side, but it's a recent photo (after reunification), which explains the trappings of wealth.

Anyway, if you accept the moral of yesterday's tale that capitalism is much more conducive to producing prosperity ex nihilo, then consider the following: Capitalism, for complex reasons I cannot fully appreciate, enables people to generate financial wealth, which can be shared and subsequently exchanged for other types of wealth: health care, education, food and clothing, shelter, peace of mind. As a system, it has proved far superior to making people rich, in all the manifold and nuanced senses of that word. If people are selfish, and choose not to share the money that capitalism has helped to provide, that is the moral failing of nations, societies, and ultimately, of individually selfish people; it is not the fault of capitalism.

In fact, the problem with a socialist system is that it denies people the freedom to choose whether they prefer to contribute to social good. They are forced to, since the government owns all property and the "means of production," and one must completely surrender to government demands. The beauty of democratic-capitalism is that people can (more or less)opt in or out of helping others. We feel good knowing that we are charitable not because it is mandated, but because we genuinely desire to improve the lives of others. Not only this, but capitalism has been the force which has generated the very dizzying volumes of cash that have made philanthropy possible at all.^α

Ok, it's getting quite late, so I'm going to wrap this up. I will close with a selection of quotes from some of the world's capitalist gurus, individuals, who by the way, do believe in the inherent moral superiority of capitalism. I found these at eircom.net; click on the link for more of the same. If you still remain in opposition to me after reading these, stare down at your laptop or PC for just a second, consider the monstrous, mega-corporation that produced it, slap yourself silly and then gouge out your eyes à la King Lear for the shameful and repugnant hypocrisy you've displayed in a) even using such a device at a library or a friend's house; or even worse b) actually buying the computer, thereby bankrolling said evil corporation. You're financing a psychopath.


"The vice of capitalism is the unequal share of the blessings; the virtue of socialism is the equal share of the misery." -Sir Winston Churchill

"Certainly it is a great unhappiness to be poor, but it is an even greater unhappiness to be surrounded by people as poor as oneself. Lacking wealth oneself, one must wish wealth for others : an indigent has infinitely greater possibilities for earning his living and becoming well-off if he lives among a rich population, than if he is surrounded by poor people like himself. And note here that the hope of the poor is not founded upon the charity of the rich, but upon the interest of the rich. It is in his own interest that the rich man supplies the poor man with land to cultivate, tools, fertilizer, and seeds, and with food on which to live until the harvest." - Jean-Baptiste Say

"Capitalism has created the highest standard of living ever known on earth. The evidence is incontrovertible. The contrast between West and East Berlin is the latest demonstration, like a laboratory experiment for all to see. Yet those who are loudest in proclaiming their desire to eliminate poverty are loudest in denouncing capitalism. Man's well-being is not their goal." - Ayn Rand

"The man at the top of the intellectual pyramid contributes the most to all those below him, but gets nothing except his material payment, receiving no intellectual bonus from others to add to the value of his time. The man at the bottom who, left to himself, would starve in his hopeless ineptitude, contributes nothing to those above him, but receives the bonus of all of their brains. Such is the nature of the 'competition' between the strong and the weak of the intellect. Such is the pattern of 'exploitation' for which you have damned the strong."- Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged"

"What they have to discover, what all the efforts of capitalism's enemies are frantically aimed at hiding, is the fact that capitalism is not merely the 'practical,' but the only moral system in history." - Ayn Rand, "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal"

"The plaints and wails of poets and preachers about the sins and errors of the capitalist system screech through intellectual history, while friendly voices are few. Yet no other system has resulted in so many books being published, schools founded, churches built, philantrophies undertaken, and intellectual and religious liberties maintained." - Michael Novak, "The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism"

"Capitalism and communism stand at opposite poles. Their essential difference is this: The communist, seeing the rich man and his fine home, says: 'No man should have so much.' The capitalist, seeing the same thing, says: 'All men should have as much.'" - Phelps Adams

"Capitalism is an art form, an Apollonian fabrication to rival nature. It is hypocritical for feminists and intellectuals to enjoy the pleasures and conveniences of capitalism while sneering at it…Everyone born into capitalism has incurred a debt to it. Give Caesar his due." - Camille Paglia

"Imagine that a genie magically appeared and offered to grant you one wish - and, being a decent sort, you wished that everyone's income would be doubled. That could bring down on you the wrath of the political left, because it would mean that the gap between the rich and the poor had widened. That is basically their complaint against the American economy." - Thomas Sowell


******************
^*Actually, according to the Wikipedia article on the Vietnamese economy, "Vietnam achieved around 8% annual GDP growth from 1990 to 1997 and continued at around 7% from 2000 to 2005, making it the world's second-fastest growing economy." Why? "In 1986, the Sixth Party Congress introduced significant economic reforms with market economy elements as part of a broad economic reform package called "đổi mới" (Renovation). Private ownership was encouraged in industries, commerce and agriculture." The CIA World Factbook similarly notes, "Growth averaged around 9% per year from 1993 to 1997. The 1997 Asian financial crisis highlighted the problems in the Vietnamese economy and temporarily allowed opponents of reform to slow progress toward a market-oriented economy. GDP growth averaged 6.8% per year from 1997 to 2004 even against the background of the Asian financial crisis and a global recession, and growth hit 8% in 2005 and 7.8% in 2006. Since 2001, however, Vietnamese authorities have reaffirmed their commitment to economic liberalization and international integration. They have moved to implement the structural reforms needed to modernize the economy and to produce more competitive, export-driven industries."

Of Laos, the CIA World Factbook also notes "The government of Laos, one of the few remaining official Communist states, began decentralizing control and encouraging private enterprise in 1986. The results, starting from an extremely low base, were striking - growth averaged 6% per year in 1988-2006 except during the short-lived drop caused by the Asian financial crisis beginning in 1997."

†Sorry, I don't have the full bibliographic reference available to me now. When I have access to it, I will add it to this footnote.

‡For example, take a look at my little chart:
Life expectancy (Avg. lifespan, in years)
1. Moses' day: 18
2. Jesus’ day: 28
3. 1800: 37
4. 1900: 50
5. Today: 70-80 (depending on location)

αThink about this for a moment. When and with whom did philanthropy as we know it begin? With the John D. Rockefeller and Standard Oil, J.P. Morgan (whose financial institution still exists as JP Morgan Chase), and Andrew Carnegie of US Steel, all in the days of (an excessively) deregulated market system. Nor are today's philanthropers, like Bill & Melinda Gates, and Google's Sergey Brin and Larry Page, the products of central planning. I don't know all the details of how Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway made its billions, but I'll let you in on a secret: it wouldn't have (and hasn't) happened under any model other than capitalism. Doing Adam Smith proud. ☺