Practical Magick
Peter Carlson has an amusing piece on young, hip witches that's a fun read. I especially liked the computer maintenance advice. At the end he's also got some comments on wealth inequality that should be answered but which, alas, I haven't the energy for right now. I'm sure some of you will in the comments, but I'm frankly more interested in the witches right now. ;-)
I wouldn't be so concerned about disparity in wealth if money and government weren't so inextricably linked. When money buys more government for one person than another, that's reason for concern.
I mean, let's get real: we aren't a Capitalist country anymore. We're demi-socialist at best, what with the incredible level of subsidies for and regulation of industry (see: airline industry getting billions of dollars, farmers, etc.).
In an actual capitalist society, disparity in wealth isn't a problem because there's the possibility for advancement through ability and work. Here? I'm not so sure (see: FCC).
The witches are cute. I'm awful fond of Willow and (sob!) Tara.
But:
Doesn't Peter Carlson own any stocks or mutual funds, or have any kind of pension plan that's invested in securities? He writes for the Washington Post, but has no 401-K? The biggest change in the financial landscape in America in the last 30 years has been the increase in stock ownership among pretty much everybody. Which means that "the working middle class" = "corporations and their wealthy owners."
"Jane Galt" has a lovely essay, Why I'm in Favor of Abolishing the Corporate Income Tax, on what's wrong with the notion that taxing corporations is going to do anyone (but politicians) any good at all. And then:
The use of language in this one sentence is remarkable. You can't cut taxes for people who don't pay taxes; and who's "rich," anyway? All pretty subjective. I don't make a lot of dough, but I pay taxes, and I'd prefer to pay less. It's no skin off my nose if Bill Gates or Warren Buffett can pay a little less, also. And "elite Republican guard?!?" Who had one of those, before we invaded Iraq? Whew. Surely he couldn't have been comparing Bush to Saddam Hussein. Surely. And last and I guess least, "foisted" on "us." Somebody put something over on someone, eh? Who's "us"? And why were "we" not paying attention? "Us" would be WaPo staffers who have no pension plans or investments, I guess. Who were distracted by the smell of the gun oil from the carbines of the "elite Republican guard," watching over their shoulders as they typed their stories.
My but I've run on! Sorry, Dean, but there was just something so -- ah, what was the the word? oh, yes, "pernicious" about that piece. And seeing my name on the front page makes me feel a little big, you know? (Oxymoron there? Or John Crowley reference? take your pick.) Thanks for the bandwidth.
The "Inequality" article was a bit one-sided, but, I might have read it twice had he put in some "cleavage" to balance it out.