If you think China is the only culprit manufacturing hazardous and recalled goods, think again. The notable thing is that almost all recalled goods are not made in the USA.
Have a look at the Consumer Product Safety Commission's website for proof. http://www.cpsc.gov/
The point is, when will our economic policies begin to favor American-made goods, and therefore American workers, and therefore the American economy?
Recent news is proof that our economy is fragile. For example, while sustainable hard goods are almost exclusively made overseas, much of what we produce here in the US are intangibles - such as loans and other money-related business. The problem is that when the markets turn downward - as they always do, and are now doing - people lose their jobs with nowhere to go. Take the loan market. As of this writing, more than 88,000 people have lost their jobs, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. As more mortgage companies go under as a result of bad loans generated in the housing-boom greed in the early 2000s, more and more people will lose their jobs. Note that these are largely unskilled jobs, to boot - loan officers are much like real estate agents; they come in off the street and are trained by the companies to perform these specific jobs. The skills aren't really portable unless one stays in the industry.
But what if that industry collapses? Where do these people go when the entire industry is in shambles? In the 70s through the 90s, it happened to our large manufacturing industries. Now it's the loan and real estate industry, a perfect case.
The government doesn't have an answer, that's for sure, other than to properly regulate international commerce.
Maybe if they took a history lesson, might that help?
Friday, August 24, 2007
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
The Being of Culture and Society
What is the nature of culture and society in the human landscape? Are "culture" and "society" entities unto themselves, deserving of protections, or are they abstractions simply bandied about in discourse?
Do these protections rate on a level with individual rights, or should the rights of the individual human supersede anything afforded culture and society?
How important are culture and society?
If culture is comprised of individuals with rights, and is defined as the collective manner of a people, do they have the collective right to change and /or defend their own culture as they see fit?
So when does the right of the individual supersede the right of a culture? Does it ever?
As such, I believe culture and society are worthy of protection, if for no other reason than they took so long to develop - and usually for good reason. This is not to say that cultures and societies are not dynamic and will change over time; of course they will, like all living things.
However, the idea that a single individual right always trumps those of culture and society is not just ludicrous, it's harmful.
Just as free speech will not allow someone to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater, so must we, at some point, recognize that some things that are done - either legally, through the judicial system or otherwise - that are just plain harmful to culture and society. One of these is not requiring assimilation.
Take illegal immigration. It's a very sad situation for people to have to uproot themselves with only the clothes on their backs to seek a better life. However, this goes back to the basic question: should the newcomers overtake the rights of those that are in the culture and society which they hope to enter? Should the culture bend to suit the newcomers?
And what about the culture that the illegals will enter, and can't help but alter; don't the existing members of that culture have something to say about how their way of life is made different?
Do we have the discipline to follow our own logic that created the culture that we love in the first place? Or are we so displease with our society that we feel it should be changed substantially through at-will immigration, and non-assimilation? Should we require fluency in multiple languages?
If culture and society are entities that we recognoze and hold dear, then don't they deserve protection, too?
Do these protections rate on a level with individual rights, or should the rights of the individual human supersede anything afforded culture and society?
How important are culture and society?
If culture is comprised of individuals with rights, and is defined as the collective manner of a people, do they have the collective right to change and /or defend their own culture as they see fit?
So when does the right of the individual supersede the right of a culture? Does it ever?
As such, I believe culture and society are worthy of protection, if for no other reason than they took so long to develop - and usually for good reason. This is not to say that cultures and societies are not dynamic and will change over time; of course they will, like all living things.
However, the idea that a single individual right always trumps those of culture and society is not just ludicrous, it's harmful.
Just as free speech will not allow someone to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater, so must we, at some point, recognize that some things that are done - either legally, through the judicial system or otherwise - that are just plain harmful to culture and society. One of these is not requiring assimilation.
Take illegal immigration. It's a very sad situation for people to have to uproot themselves with only the clothes on their backs to seek a better life. However, this goes back to the basic question: should the newcomers overtake the rights of those that are in the culture and society which they hope to enter? Should the culture bend to suit the newcomers?
And what about the culture that the illegals will enter, and can't help but alter; don't the existing members of that culture have something to say about how their way of life is made different?
Do we have the discipline to follow our own logic that created the culture that we love in the first place? Or are we so displease with our society that we feel it should be changed substantially through at-will immigration, and non-assimilation? Should we require fluency in multiple languages?
If culture and society are entities that we recognoze and hold dear, then don't they deserve protection, too?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)