Miami Vice: The Class Analysis

Everyone knows that the new big-screen “Miami Vice” is “darker” than the old one, meaning that the light-hearted, wise-cracking Don Johnson and Philip Michael Thomas have been replaced by the brooding, inarticulate Colin Farrell and Jamie Foxx, who favor dingy blues and grays over their predecessors’ lavender and turquoise outfits. But the real darkness of the movie has gone unnoted by the critics: In his latest “Vice,” Michael Mann offers up an economically globalized world populated only by the grimly poor and the breathtakingly ultra-rich, all of whom are big-time felons.

Here, the poor serve largely as scenery, reminding us that we are now in Port au Prince (black faces), Cuidad del Este (brown), or a trailer park in the industrial wastelands of Miami (white and often tattooed.) A few of them seem to be employed as look-outs or, a little higher up the career ladder, “shooters,” for the drug gangs. Otherwise, they might as well be signposts.

As for a middle, or working, class: In crime fiction, this is the historical role of the cops or private eyes. In “Miami Vice,” though, the good guys have not a shred of material existence to betray their social class. Crockett and Tubbs don’t live anywhere, and touch down only in unfurnished apartments provided by their employer, where they use the showers for sex. They never sleep or eat, so we cannot know whether they prefer, for example, burgers to blackened sea bass. Only bad guys eat and then not much. The one who did appear to be chewing may have been just gnawing on his meth mouth.

In general, it’s a starkly stripped-down world our heroes now inhabit. What is all the shooting about? Drugs, of course, but these are rarely mentioned by name, nor do the good guys ever hint at any moral impulse for the war. Are the drugs destructive? Could they possibly be more destructive than the shoot-outs, bombings, and torturings occasioned by their illegal status? No one seems to care. Drugs are just the “product,” and the only issue is their delivery – successful or intercepted in a hail of automatic weapon fire.

In Mann’s hyper-abstract version of global capitalism, the “product” could be anything, so long as its price is high enough. To make sure we get the point, the coldhearted drug queen played by Gong Li suits up in high-corporate minimalism and refers to herself as a “businesswoman.”

It’s the ultra-rich—Gong Li and her colleagues-- who hold our eyes in “Miami Vice.” They live too large for movies; they need IMax. I gasped when the camera swept over Brazil’s Iguassu Falls, which are surely the very suburbs of heaven, and settled on the evil ones’ mountain-top mansion, where the drug lord and his lady were cuddling and scheming, attended by a small army of servants. They may not have much fun –Gong Li’s thoughts are elsewhere --but whatever they have, they have it fast. Want to dash over to Geneva to make a deposit? The personal jet awaits.

There’s an instructive scene when things begin to heat up between Colin Farrell and Gong Li. (They’re on opposite sides of the drug war, but in the same zone of hotness.) He offers her a drink. She favors mojitos, and tells him the best one’s are in Havana. They’re in Miami when this exchange takes place, but – no problem – a high-speed power boat whisks them off to the mojito source. If she’d asked for a Stoli on million-year-old ice, no doubt they would have hightailed right down to Antarctica.

Alright, it’s just a silly summer movie, lacking either comprehensible dialogue or plot. But Mann’s bleak vision of a world divided between shanty-towns and trailer parks, at one end, and unimaginable luxury, at the other, is not far off the mark. Take the crucial matter of travel: While the poor creep around in buses and the affluent creep a little faster in taxis, there’s a class of people who take helicopters to the airport, where they then embark on private planes. According the August 6 New York Times, private aviation has gone “mainstream,” with even the “merely rich,” who can’t afford their own planes, buying up 25 hours of air travel for $299,000.

No pretzels on their menu. As the Times reports, one private fleet met a passenger’s requirement for “Grey Goose vodka frozen two hours before flight, ice cubes made with Fiji water; filet mignon of precise cut and dimension; and Froot Loops… for the kids.”

Meanwhile, according to globalissues.com, nearly half the world’s people – 3 billion – live on less than $2 a day. Their lives are too cramped and squalid to make for good summer viewing. But they do serve a function as local color-- and by catching the occasional bullet or bomb.

Comments

[realpc]

"nearly half the world’s people live on less than $2 a day"

Because they have not industrialized. Also, $2 a day is meaningless without knowing the cost of living of the area. Subsistence farmers, for example, might need less than $2.

I am not in favor of the whole world becoming industrialized like us, since the environment is bad enough already. But as long as populations in poor areas exceed the capacity of traditional lifestyles, there will be desperate poverty. And the only way out (other than family planning) is industrialization and capitalism.

Preventing tribal warfare and reducing infant mortality are the worst possible responses. Traditional people have lost their place in nature, on one hand, and are not able to compete with the Western world, on the other.

It's a dilemma with no simple answer, but the "progressive" answers are the least helpful.

Poor countries that follow the Western example gradually develop a middle class and become educated. It takes generations, just as it did here in America.

As agricultural land filled up here, people left farming and went into industry. At the same time, farms became bigger and more efficient. We are a rich country because we followed this path, and others can do the same.

But the loss of traditional cultures is tragic, and the over-population and environmental damage is obivously becoming a disaster. If the 3 billion poor people become middle class and start driving cars, the planet will not survive.

These problems are complex and it is a big mistake to blame them on America or capitalism. Our prosperity does not cause third world poverty. We do not take from them to give to ourselves. That is a very simple, and wrong, perception. Trade between us and developing nations helps them, maybe more than it helps us. Nations we refuse to trade with, like North Korea, suffer.

[Jason Gooljar]

Keep on telling the truth like it is! There is a class war going on but one side is fighting and the poor and middle-class are not.

[Al]

When I was a relative child, we saw fantasy presentations of these super-criminal rich as well. The movies were the initial James Bond films. However, as middle class viewers we were rather offended by the pretensions of Mr. Goldfinger (among others) because of their criminal provenance. We didn't admire these cretins (besides, Bond seemed to live as well as they did). But it seems as if the criminal rich in today's entertainment are somewhat more acceptable as role models in the way that they are presented. That's unfortunate.

As for the condescending lesson in libertarian economics presented by your first respondent, gee, shucks, I guess the world will just have to remain a place of suffering for the ignorant poor. I'm sure they're better off living on less than $2 a day and learning how to pull themselves up by their bootstraps than they would be if we spoiled them by giving them a hand. (Is this guy nuts, or what?)

[Sarah]

Perhaps "readpc" should remember that the United States industrialized on wealth generatted by forced labor and stolen land

[realpc]

"the United States industrialized on wealth generatted by forced labor and stolen land"

That's all that progressives have to say about America anymore.

Anyone who actually read my post would see I am not taking a side.

It is just a fact that America and capitalism are not the cause of world poverty.

Some American settlers killed Indians and some owned slaves. Killing and slavery are not specific to capitalist nations, but have occurred everywhere (and anti-capitalist nations were no exception).

America was the place that eventually decided all human beings have rights. That always seems to be left out of the Ward Churchill tirades.

I said that I do not want the whole world to be like us, but the reality of life is that traditional lifetyles cannot support growing populations. Curing diseasese, preventing tribal warfare and infant mortality, sending food -- none of these well-meaning efforts end third world poverty, and have even helped to cause it.

There is nothing libertarian about trying to look at the facts, rather than believe in fairy tales.

You would rather think the big bad capitalists are oppressing the world. Everything will be lovely and harmonious once the capitalists are defeated -- like in Aldous Huxley's novel Island, or Korten's New Age fairy tale.

[Hattie]

"Preventing tribal warfare and reducing infant mortality are the worst possible responses.
Obviously, real pc believes that poor people do not deserve to have lives and that human suffering is meaningless.
Also, pc does not believe that poor people have agency. In his mind they just breed and fight each other.
I just got back from a political rally. Many people of modest and worse means are running for local offices from a poor and underserved area near where I live. They are inspiring in their resourcefulness. With the means, they could do great things. But they are stuck in a bad economy.
The military is sucking up all the capital in the U.S. and leaving Americans poorer and poorer. At best, we get their leavings.

[lc2]

Only someone who doesn't value human rights, regardless of their country of origin, would suggest that reducing infant mortality rates is a mistake.

PC's comments are inhumane and ill-informed to the extreme, although I have the nagging sense that this is all a joke to him/her. Time for those of us who actually care to disregard his/her senseless diatribes against anything that isn't winner-take-all-type capitalism and renew a dialogue that seeks higher ground.

[realpc]

"real pc believes that poor people do not deserve to have lives and that human suffering is meaningless. "

I don't believe anything like that. But what is the sense of blaming world poverty on things that did not cause it? What is the point of trying to solve it in the same old ways that don't work?

Global industrialization is probably the best way to help poor countries, but it is damaging to the environment and it makes traditional cultures obsolete.

What you don't undesttand is that I am not stating personal preferences, just observing the evidence and saying what it looks like to me.

[realpc]

"Only someone who doesn't value human rights, regardless of their country of origin, would suggest that reducing infant mortality rates is a mistake."

I never said it's a mistake! I said it causes population to increase, a major cause of poverty in Africa. What is the point of denying facts?

If you want population to increase, they you have to modernize. Traditional farming does not support ever-increasing populations. You can either modernize, which means capitalism and industrialization, or stop increasing the population. Modernizing means the loss of traditional cultures and destruction of the environment.

[lc2]

Methinks realpc doth protest too much. The exclamation points give him/her away every time. S/he posts to inflame, backs him/herself into a corner, then tries to rewrite history. Alas, the proof is in the posts.

I'm unaware of conclusive evidence -- or evidence of any kind -- that infant mortality rates are linked to resource economics. Is pc saying that if enough babies die because of unsanitary birth conditions or dirty drinking water supplies (sadly but truly sometimes because of western corporate contamination), there will be enough food to go around -- that infant mortality is part of the natural order of things? Or that people of good faith who wish to spare other human beings the unfathomable despair of burying offspring are misguided and part of the problem? Pray tell, how does AIDS fit into this equation? Should orphaned infants in traditional societies be allowed to perish without intervention, as well?

Once again, pc has gone a little too far out on a limb and no matter how hard s/he tries to claw his/her way back, the damage is done.

Like I said, it's high time to return this forum to those serious and compassionate folks who want to do better by their fellow human beings. We didn't need Barbara Ehrenreich to tell us what any thoughtful person can see with his/her own eyes and more importantly, feel with his/her own heart. However, her blog offers us alternatives and perspectives that accomplish the opposite of pc's accusations of "victim mentalities." Rather, they inspire and empower those who know we can do better.

Will realpc slink off into the conservative blogosphere already? Although I must warn him/her, I don't think his/her comments about third-world infant mortality will be welcome in all but the most extreme circles.

[Sarah]

Realpc's analysis is ahistorical. Poverty in Africa is not caused by overpopulation but by the destruction of resources by the west. This is especially true when the destruction of human resources in the 17th, 18, and 19th century is taken into account.

The spoils of the Mexican American War allowed the United States to finish industrializing with a minimium of outside capital. Something no other country has been able to do. This allowed industrial profits to stay in the United States rather than going to another country.

[deang]

So, back to Barbara's comments on extreme contemporary class divisions and away from realpc's (unfortunately all too typical among US right-wingers) distractions. A reading group I'm currently involved in is reading Mike Davis's "Planet of Slums" and a quote from it fits right in with Barbara's theme:

Quoting Jeremy Seabrook, Davis writes that today's wealthy "cease to be citizens of their own country and become nomads belonging to, and owing allegiance to, a superterrestrial topography of money; they become patriots of wealth, nationalists of an elusive and golden nowhere" of "fantasy-themed enclaves and edge cities, disembedded from their own social landscapes but integrated into globalization's cyber-California floating in the digital ether."

The book focuses on the masses of poor people driven into cities by a variety of forces, most of them deriving from land speculation by the wealthy.

[realpc]

There are many different reasons for poverty in Africa. Before it was colonized by Europe most of its societies were traditional and tribal, more or less in harmony with the natural environment. Population was low and Infant mortality was high, as it is in all pre-industrial cultures.

European colonialism damaged Africa, but other places have been able to recover. The US is not entirely innocent, especially considering the games it played during the Cold War. But the US and other advanced nations have also poured money into Africa with no results -- one reason is the corrupt African governments.

Some African poverty might result from predatory corporations but it would be simplistic to blame capitalism in general. With all its faults, capitalism has helped many people in developing nations escape desperate poverty.

There is nothing "right-wing" about what I'm saying. How many right-wingers say the destruction of traditional cultures is tragic, or that industrialization destroys nature?

You are angry at my statements because you want a simple "good vs. evil" situation. You would rather stop thinking and questioning so you can join an angry anti-capitalist mob. But you have no idea how to end poverty in Africa.

Furthermore, I bet your anger about world poverty has not stopped you from living the American lifestyle and supporting the corporations you blame for the world's evil.

[joem]

Most of realpc's comments are absolutely right. His/her initial remarks about infant mortality were disturbing but they may have been a poor choice of words rather than a call to nothing about the problem.

Anyway I will go on record saying that I am against infant mortality! I am also a capitalist and even (gasp!) a libertarian so most of you would consider me a right-winger despite my liberal views on many social issues.

While there is no excuse for the way some white settlers treated the Native Americans, most of the land in the United States was not stolen but was formerly uninhabited. Much of the rest was simply passed through by nomadic tribes in their migrations or disputed by tribes constantly warring with each other. And slavery, while making some individual slave owners rich, bound the states where it was practiced to a way of life that actually held back creation of wealth. What made the United States a wealthy nation was not slavery or exploitation, but ingenuity and innovation. The poverty that the developing world now experiences is just the way the whole world was from the beginning of human history until the industrial revolution.

I do disagree with realpc about two things: industrial impact on traditional cultures and the environment. Industrialization does not necessarily destroy traditional cultures, it just requires that they shed their more barbaric elements like genital mutilation and honor killings. Initially industrialization harms the environment but as a country advances through the stages of industrialization, technology to protect and restore the environment gets better. So emerging nations today may experience pollution, as they go through the stage of development that we did in the late 19th century, but given time they will become like us with our resurgent forests and wildlife, and our increasingly clean rivers and lakes.

[realpc]

"The poverty that the developing world now experiences is just the way the whole world was from the beginning of human history until the industrial revolution."

No, it wasn't. Before industrialization population stayed within the limits of the earth's ability to support it. People did not have easy lives (we don't either, for that matter) but the horrors of contemporary African poverty were not the rule.

Africa is caught between ancient and modern stages, and it has remained paralyzed. I do not think our modern civilization is superior -- it just is what we evolved into.

Our freedom and creativty causes us to evolve at an ever-increasing pace. Our compassion, ironically, sometimes harms more than it helps. Going to extreme lengths to keep sick babies alive when their parents are starving is very well-meaning but in the long run very harmful. And giving food to starving Africans can destroy local agriculture, without providing any long-term solutions.

I am NOT a libertarian. None of the current ideologies have the answers the world needs. If the whole world becomes capitalist and properous like America, the earth will be destroyed.

[Hatte]

Why are we discussing Africa? I have never been there, and everything I know about that huge continent is at second hand. "Africa" has become, in the minds of many, metaphorical for poor and black."Africa" lends itself to all kinds of ahistorical speculations about the causes of poverty.
I prefer talking about things I have some knowledge of.

[realpc]

Hattie, you can talk about whatever you want.

Africa is the poorest continent in the world, and anti-capitalists like to blame that on America and other modern nations. When the subject of world poverty is brought up, Africa is the obvious example. Are we creating the poverty in Africa by participating in capitalism? That is often implied, but what is the evidence?

[gary]

Excellent Review. Crockett and Tubbs could be members of a new transglobal
technical/managerial class administering and controling the " excess violent
Impulses" of the deliriously super wealthy and the world's growing wholesale
population of paupers. This "new" class are mere instruments of management, and
are rootless, void of most human characteristics of family, dining, home,
friendships, neighborhood, and ultimately disposable without a trace.

[Anarcissie]

The "new" class isn't very new. As Marx noted away back in 1848, in the Communist Manifesto, "The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his 'natural superiors', and has left no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous 'cash payment'. It has drowned out the most heavenly ecstacies of religious fervor, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom -- Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation."

There, and in _Miami_Vice_, you have the New Capitalist Man in purest form. But it occurs to me if this vision is showing up in a movie, a popular romance, it may already be pass. A decade or two ago, it was fashionable to kill for money or social status. But now it is becoming increasingly fashionable to kill for some vague sense of being wronged, because of the promptings of heavenly voices, or for no accountable reason at all.

Meanwhile capitalism grinds obliviously onward towards its inscrutable destiny. Or at least _I_ don't know what to do about it.

[joem]

"'The poverty that the developing world now experiences is just the way the whole world was from the beginning of human history until the industrial revolution.'"
"No, it wasn't. Before industrialization population stayed within the limits of the earth's ability to support it. People did not have easy lives (we don't either, for that matter) but the horrors of contemporary African poverty were not the rule."
Well, I can't say that every day back then was miserable, but there was certainly no shortage of plagues, famines, etc.

"Our compassion, ironically, sometimes harms more than it helps. Going to extreme lengths to keep sick babies alive when their parents are starving is very well-meaning but in the long run very harmful. And giving food to starving Africans can destroy local agriculture, without providing any long-term solutions."
Using your logic we could say most foods either make you fat, cause cancer, or both, therefore we should stop eating.

I do agree that long term solutions are better than band-aids. So far there has been no long-term solution to eliminate poverty, but capitalist develpoment has greatly reduced it.

"If the whole world becomes capitalist and properous like America, the earth will be destroyed."
You may find support for this opinion among scientists who use fear to sell books and raise funds. However, this is hardly a universally agreed to fact within the scientific community.

[gaby]

My sociology professor had an idea. He called for the abolishment of inheritance. Everyone will receive about $200,000 upon highschool graduation and what you do with it is your business. Some will use it for a college education, some will blow it on sportscars and whatnot, some will invest in stocks. The focus was to level the playing field and give all kids a decent chance.

Interesting idea, unrealistic though. But as long as we can share ideas in this country, there is hope.

[annex]

Great analysis and observations about the movie. The thing about "Miami Vice" is that it's always had a story about good and evil at the core. The new movie is "darker" than the tv series...this one ends (spoiler alert) with the good guys trudging and suffering, the low-level and mid-level bad guys taking some hits, and the high-level super-rich badguys only a little inconvenienced. Sorta seems realistic to me.

Some of the best "background" in the movie was the scene in the Havana club...great music, great dancing, and even the stars got a few moments of simple pleasure.

I think Barbara's analysis is right on...it's a good movie!

[realpc]

gaby,

Yes, I think inheritance is the cause of most inequality and unfairness. But I don't see progressives recommending we abolish inheritance. Americans would not go along with it, for one thing, since every parent wants to help their children.

And besides, rich people inherit more than just money. They are born with social connections that give them advantages their whole lives.

Parental love might be the main cause of social injustice! Progressives usually miss this kind of irony. They think social injustice must result from hate, selfishness and greed. But I think it more often results from love, talent, creativity, motivation and healthy competition. Do we want to stamp those things out, as the Marxist revolutionaries did?

We should try to give everyone a fair start, but having rich parents (all other things being the same) will always give an advantage.

[Mike Rice]

I was most interested in the romantic interlude in Havana.
Havana lingers in the twilight of the old industrial society of the fifties, stopped in time by
the US boycott of Castro's
Cuba.

I spotted Brother Sky Masterson with Sister Sarah in a cubicle behind Crockett and Gong Li in one
of the Havana restaurant scenes.

Mike Rice

[realpc]

"Havana lingers in the twilight of the old industrial society of the fifties, stopped in time by the US boycott of Castro's Cuba."

But I thought trading with the US makes countries poor!!

How can yuo blame world poverty on America and capitalism, and at the same time blame it on lack of America and capitalism??

Something is very wrong with the logic. Maybe I just don't understand -- can someone explain?

[That Girl]

Barbara, in case you actually read the comments, I thank you very much for all the work you do and your great writing.
Putting into writing and showing the "man behind the curtain" helps those of us who are trying to change the world for the better.
You remind me of one of the women Sherri Tepper is always exhorting us to be.
Thanks!

PS. Im sorry that even you have trolls. Perhaps the next generation will find a cure for them.

[realpc]

Yeah, it really sucks when people disagree. In your brave new world, it won't be allowed.

[bg58]

I just ran across your blog tonight. I'm overjoyed to see you presence on the web.

[Mowbray]

Ms. Ehrenreich... stop with the movie analysis/criticism/ratings rant(s)... your strength it is not. All is not black and white as that particular movie tries to portend... weakest Mann movie yet... not deserving of mention in your important views on the west, let alone discussions of globalism... nice earings BTW

[Anarcissie]

realpc: ' "Havana lingers in the twilight of the old industrial society of the fifties, stopped in time by the US boycott of Castro's Cuba."

But I thought trading with the US makes countries poor!!

How can you blame world poverty on America and capitalism, and at the same time blame it on lack of America and capitalism??

Something is very wrong with the logic. Maybe I just don't understand -- can someone explain?'

Sure. You can have three classes of people, or communities: a rich exploiter class, the people who work for them, who are poor, and the people who aren't even allowed to work for them, who are poorer still.

However, I don't think that applies to Cuba. Cuba got a lot of Soviet aid, and it was a much different sort of society than anything I know about in the U.S. in the first place. The Soviets and their Cuban disciples were not interested in developing Cuba the way the previous regime and the Mafia had been. Hence there was little or no construction of resort hotels, nightclubs and a tourist industry, but on the other hand Cuba got literacy and a fair medical establishment (if what I read is correct). Whether Cuba is better off or worse off depends on what you think is valuable. The U.S. probably damaged itself with the embargo more than it damaged Cuba. Its value has been pretty ambiguous, and in the end it has made Cuba more autonomous, more independent of the U.S. And it has certainly helped keep Castro and company in power. I find the complaints about it ring somewhat hollow when they come from fans of the regime, although I can understand why ordinary Americans find it idiotic.

[realpc]

I guess we had to show Cuba disapproval in some way, since they were a friend of our enemy, the Soviet Union. But good relations with Cuba might have convinced them our system isn't so bad.

The rich people the Cuban revolution threw out were (I assume) oppressors who deserved to be thrown out. But literacy and medical care does not make living under an all-powerful cult leader worthwhile. We don't really know what life in Cuba is like. Maybe it's ok if Castro happens to like you, but watch out if he doesn't. He has complete power over those people.

America was founded on the premise that no government can be trusted. Even if it starts out good, if it gets too much power it is likely to become unfair and oppressive, to prefer some groups over others. Since we do not have term limits in Congress, our government is increasingly corrupt and unfair.

But we are still better off than governments that result from communist revolutions. The philosophers of communism never understood what the American founders did -- that no government can be trusted. The Communist party takes over and becomes all-powerful, and after that no one can oppose it in any way.

America needs a lot of improvement, but at least the underlying philosophy is sensible and realistic. The underlying philosophy of communism/socialism is a fantasy. It says that when you get rid of the oppressors, things will automatically become fair.

I guess Castro has tried to be fair to his people and I imagine he cares about them, wants them to have food and education and health care. But each person's life, at any moment, depends on his whim. He is a human being but he, and all others like him, has the power of a god. At least in ancient monarchies the king's powers were restrained by long-standing traditions. In modern dictatorships, the power is unlimited.

I would not want the rich oppressors to return to Cuba. Either capitalism or communism has its disadvantages, but I doubt the Cubans want another communist dictator after Castro.

[Buffy]

Memories....
I spent the summer of 1980 as a nursing intern at a private hospital across the street from Jackson Memorial, the Dade County public trauma hospital. I arrived in May and had to return to NYC after one week for a wedding. During my few days away, I kept seeing reports of Liberty City riots in Miami, but I didn't have any reference point until I hailed a taxi to return to the hospital staff housing. The driver looked at me in alarm and asked, "are you sure you want to go THERE?" Liberty City was just down the avenue from the hosptial. When I returned it was to find the first floor windows of the hospital and housing building boarded up and Miami SWAT officers using our roof for sniper positions. (We were still allowed up there because it also contained a penthouse laundry room and a swimming pool.)

Later that summer, the Cuban boat people arrived in droves. The hospital I was interning with was all private, and so when Cuban refugees presented to the ER for treatment, they discovered that if they didn't have an insurance card or a credit card, they would not be allowed into the ER at all. They were redirected to go to Jackson's ER, which treats all comers.

Near the end of the summer, I was working in the ER when two Miami vice officers - yep, the real deal, but not as fashionably dressed as the movie characters - arrived after a scuffle with protesters in Liberty City. One officer needed to be treated, and I was the one who had to relieve him of his side arm until his partner arrived to take it into custody. (Another reason that all nurses and physicians should know how to handle firearms.)

As I took care of him, he relayed how there were multiple people injured. The officers were being sent to my hospital, and the protesters were all taken to Jackson. More to separate them from flares of hot tempers than to segregate care. Jackson's ER is top notch and first rate.

As we chatted about my out of state status, the officer asked his partner to get me a T-Shirt that they had in their car. The vice cops had purchased tees with a Miami cityscape outlined, but with flames erupting from the entire cityscape. The caption read, "Miami - See It Like A Native".

[joem]

>How can yuo blame world poverty on America and capitalism, and at the same time blame it on lack of >America and capitalism??

>Something is very wrong with the logic. Maybe I just don't understand -- can someone explain?
>
Sure, America is always wrong, the West is always wrong, men are always wrong, white people are always wrong, etc. Whenever there is an issue that puts any of the preceding groups in conflict, just find a position that maximizes damage to as many of them as possible.

>>PS. Im sorry that even you have trolls. Perhaps the next generation will find a cure for them.
>Yeah, it really sucks when people disagree. In your brave new world, it won't be allowed.
Of course not! Everyone will think and act according to middle-class politically correct “liberal” standards, at least until the Islamic Fundamentalists take over.

[Jon]

I wonder who pays real pc to troll at Barbara's blog. What do they pay him? How many other sites is he paid to monitor and troll at? What other pseudonyms does he use? Is this what Mom and Dad sent you to college for?

[lc2]

Yeah, must be that enemy, parental love, at work again...

[Hattie]

The whole neo con thing is that they are smart and everyone else is stupid. They are furious that we, the supposed stupid ones, have caught on to them.

[That Girl]

Yes, Hattie, they are so smart it never occured to them that I didnt specify who was a troll - they outed themselves by responding. Like shooting fish in a barrel.

[That Girl]

Yes, Hattie, they are so smart it never occured to them that I didnt specify who was a troll - they outed themselves by responding. Like shooting fish in a barrel.

[Barbara E]

Contrary to rumor, realpc and other trolls are not on my payroll. I thank them for voluntarily spicing up the site!

[realpc]

You're welcome! A little controversy is healthy.

But I am NOT a troll. I am trying to understand why people follow various ideologies.

[realpc]

I just read Bait and Switch and I have some criticisms. Barbara made a, supposedly, whole-hearted effort to find a job as a public relations expert, and found nothing after almost a year. And none of the other job seekers she met found a decent job.

My first comment is: I wonder how badly Barbara really wanted to find a job. After all, if things had gone well there would be nothing to write about in Bait and Switch. Is it possible she subconsciously sabatoged the effort?

For example, what about her "crisis management" PR idea -- sarcasm is hardly ever a winning strategy for job-seekers.

Another problem with the book is there is absolutely no attempt at fair reporting. Certainly the majority of professionals displaced in the years following 2001 managed to recover. But Barbara does not find one single successful example.

[Hattie]

Oh how we want to believe that professionals will always be able to "recover."
My husband got a desperate call the other day from the former CEO of a company that went under, asking him if he knew of any work available. This man has been looking for about a year now.
And this is not the first time my husband has gotten calls like this.
It's very frightening. This situation reminds me of the early 70's, when a lot of middle aged white professional males lost their jobs and were marginal or unemployed for a long time. Their whole belief system was shattered.

[Anarcissie]

I was laid off from a "professional", i.e. technical, job about four years ago. At that time, there was really _nothing_ out there. When the labor market crept back a little I became a part-time contractor and consultant, and since I have been able to limit my outgoes pretty stringently, I have a far better life than I had when I was an employee. But many people who are strapped to a mortgage, payments on their plastic, a long gas-burning commute, or a lot of dependents are suffering, especially as they get older and become targets of age discrimination, which is now reaching pretty far down. Meanwhile the government is bankrupting the country.... It's not a pretty picture. But I have met a lot of people who have evolved into a sort of post-employment economy, as I guess I have.

[realpc]

I do agree with a lot of what Barbara has to say about corporations. There is very little concern about human beings. People who are experienced experts and have worked for a company for years should be valued. Not suddenly laid off for no reason, to increase the executives' pay.

She does point out, very fairly, that no business can guarantee jobs for life. But there has been a cold and ruthless attitude.

Another very serious problem she mentions is forced overtime for professionals. I think requiring anything over 40 hours should be illegal. Employees who are workaholics and don't want a family life or hobbies are part of the problem -- they make all the normal employees look bad. But there should be some kind of law protecting the 40 hour week.

I expected Barbara to say we should get rid of corporations and capitalism altogether, but so far she has said nothing like that. I still have 5 more pages, though.

I do agree reforms are urgently needed. We can't get rid of big corporations, since they are simply the results of success. But we need better laws.

For example, when corporations under-fund their pension plans and taxpayers have to bail them out, that is obviously criminal.

[Jeannettee Spaghetti]

I don't understand why realpc continuously interprets any healthy critique of the American economy and/or job market to be a railing of "capitalism" in general.

Any economic system can be corrupted and thwarted to benefit a minority, regardless of how sound its underlying ideologies might be. Pointing this out does not make one a socialist or an anti-capitalist. In fact, phrasing dissident in such terms is both simplistic and ignorant. Realpc seems to have many preconceived notions that s/he would do well to reconcile before launching crititism at any and all of Ms. Ehrenreich's writing. Reading a book prior to shoveling out ridicule and criticism is also advisable.

[eddy]

**Another very serious problem she mentions is forced overtime for professionals. I think requiring anything over 40 hours should be illegal. Employees who are workaholics and don't want a family life or hobbies are part of the problem -- they make all the normal employees look bad. But there should be some kind of law protecting the 40 hour week.**

Finally someone is saying what I have said for years. The workaholics raise the bar for everyone. In fact, it's career suicide in some places to have any interest outside of work.

I once worked at a sales job where the employees actually competed and boasted to see who could work the most hours. Of course, the bosses loved it, as they sipped martini's on their boats.

It's one thing to suspect you are being used. Another to know it and be fine with it. I left that place after a month.

People died to give us the 40 hr week. Read up on the labor movement in the late 19th/early 20th century. Corporations hired people to beat up and even shoot labor reformers(ex: Harry Bennett, Ford Motor). And with unions having NO power anymore, they are going back to the way it was.

[eddy]

Also, besides the inherent greed factor, i.e. people working longer makes them more money faster, it also forces ignorance.

If one is too busy and too tired from working 60-70 or more hours a week, they have little time to stay informed, or read things like Barbara E's books. They are reduced to sanitized corporate news bites, which tell them things are just fine (or horrible, depending on the desired perception.)

They are told not to believe their lying eyes, in essence. "No, the middle class is not losing ground. In fact, real wages, job growth, productivity, etc, are up." So you stay asleep, content to be human cattle. But the nagging feeling never goes away, does it?

Btw--'productivity' is just a way of saying less people doing more work. When you hear 'productivity is up', always remember that's great for THEM, not YOU. It means people doing more work at less cost(to the corporation). It's a measure of corporate efficiency, not quality of life.

[realpc]

"I don't understand why realpc continuously interprets any healthy critique of the American economy and/or job market to be a railing of "capitalism" in general."

If you read my last comment you would know that I agree with some of Barbara's main criticisms of corporations today. I read every word of Bait and Switch.

I know that Barbara Ehrenreich has been a socialist activist since the 1960s, so I expect her to be an anti-capitalist.

But like most anti-capitalists today, she does not offer a better idea. Not in Bait and Switch anyway, or in any articles I have read.

I think it's great to criticize the existing system and suggest ways the laws can be improved.

But vague complaints about capitalism in general do not make sense. Capitalism evolved naturally and is an improvement over what came before (even Marx believed this). Socialists expected capitalism to evolve into something fair, democratic, equal and peaceful but that did not happen.

All the socialist revolutions resulted in systems that were authoritarian and state-controlled. We have not seen anything that results in peace and fairness. Capitalism has many faults, is very much in need of improvement, but it is the only system that allows individual freedom. It also has resulted in greater prosperity for the middle class than socialism or any other kind of authoritarianism.

All of the advanced nations are basically capitalist, with socialist reforms added on. The US provides less government assistance than others -- partly because we have to provide military defense for all the rest, and partly because capitalism tends to be an American tradition.

I think it's a mistake to be miserable because we live in a capitalist system that does not always provide for all our needs. That is life. It can be improved in limited ways, but it cannot be made ideal for everyone.

One of the main themes in Bait and Switch is that people should look outside themselves, at the system, for the source of their problems. It is of no use trying to have a positive attitude or relying on spiritual faith.

Of course some of our problems come from outside, but some also come from within. It's very easy to adopt a failing attitude and blame it all on the world, much harder to stay positive and maintain faith in something greater. Barbara does not believe faith or positive thinking can help, but I and I'm sure countless others have discovered it can have miraculous results.

[realpc]

eddy,

If politicians were made aware of how Americans feel about forced unpaid overtime, isn't it possible they might listen?

As you said, Americans often take pride in working ridiculous and unhealthy hours. But when it's actually studied, it turns out that low productivity and burn-out are often the result.

If business owners were aware of the disadvantages of forced overtime, maybe their policiies would change.

I do not think this is an unavoidable problem of capitialism. I think it's a problem that needs to be fixed and maybe it can be.

[eddy]

**I think it's a mistake to be miserable because we live in a capitalist system that does not always provide for all our needs. That is life. It can be improved in limited ways, but it cannot be made ideal for everyone.**

Why can't it, is the point? If we are going to hold up capitalism, esp the US brand, as the best hope of the world, how can we contradict ourselves by saying it can't be made ideal for everyone? Then it's not the 'best hope' then, is it, if inherent in the system is that some *must* be left out for it to work well for the rest.

Suppose you are one of the ones left out? Guarantee you won't be praising the 'virtues of the system', then. It's easy to armchair quarterback on things we do not have to actually live with.

**Barbara does not believe faith or positive thinking can help, but I and I'm sure countless others have discovered it can have miraculous results.**

That whole faith and positive thinking bit in the book was inherently New Age mysticism, borged up for the business world. All the buzzwords were there: visualization, self-will, positive reinforcement, etc. All basically saying 'you can create your own reality'.

If that's so, we have a lot of sick people 'creating reality' around us. Inherent in the religion of self-interest is the fact that these interests contradict the next guy's. So whose interests win out? The one with the greater will? Sounds like 'survival of the fittest' to me. Well then just say so.

So all the positive thinking philosophy does is to trick the victims into blaming themselves. No different then most right-wing screed, just polished up with neo-mystical wordplay. It makes it okay to ignore the problems rather than seek solutions. You just said that Barbara offers no solutions. Even so, how is just chalking it all off to 'negative energy' a solution either?

If it worked, we'd not be discussing this stuff, would we? We'd have 'positive visualized' ourselves into paradise ages ago.

[eddy]

**If politicians were made aware of how Americans feel about forced unpaid overtime, isn't it possible they might listen?**

The inherent assumption here is political solutions are the answer to begin with. Politicians have repeatedly proven themselves to be more interested in being elected than in solving problems. Why, if they did that, there'd be no need for politics, would there?

The purpose of a bureaucracy is to perpetuate itself. It can't afford to actually solve the problem that led to it's creation, for that would render it without purpose. The US govt is largest bureaucracy ever created.

Having said that, would they listen? Are they now? Over half the nation wants us out of Iraq(for example). So much for what the people want.

So the answer is no, they would not, cuz they don't have to. It is corporate interests who really run things, and they are giddy about squeezing as much as possible from us to fatten the bottom line.

So politics is not the solution. In fact, it probably is precisely WHY things do not change.

[realpc]

The government will listen to what Americans want, because otherwise they cannot be elected. Lieberman lost the Democratic nomination because he supports the war in Iraq. Other politicians who support the war will have trouble if voters increasingly oppose the war.

Our government responds to the polls because they cannot be elected if they ignore them.

[realpc]

" If we are going to hold up capitalism, esp the US brand, as the best hope of the world, how can we contradict ourselves by saying it can't be made ideal for everyone?"

You are speaking in absolutes but I am not. Nothing in this life can be made ideal for everyone. I said our capitalist system has many faults and always needs improvement, but it can never be perfect according to every individual's ideal.

We all have our own ideas and you cannot please everyone. Haven't you heard that before? Life can't be perfect. Haven't you heard that before?

There are possible solutions for many of our worst problems, but partisan bickering and absolute thinking prevent compromise and progress.

For example, we must have complete and absolute high-tech medical coverage for every single person,. No compromises or half-way solutions allowed. Why not? I can think of many practical compromises but progressives won't allow it because they won't settle for less than perfect equality.

[Jeannettee Spaghetti]

"The government will listen to what Americans want, because otherwise they cannot be elected."

Please tell me that you're not this naive, realpc. This statement is far removed from the reality in which we now live.

"Our government responds to the polls because they cannot be elected if they ignore them."

Again, naive much? Do you honestly believe that "our government" makes decisions based on polls? How so?! Lieberman got voted out of office. So what? The fact that incumbents happen to occasionally get voted out of office means nothing. The illusion that the system is fair and still works the way it was intended is vital to keeping up the charade.

The American political landscape now essentially consists of a false lib vs. con paradigm that ends up being little more than a circus sideshow filled with ultimately meaningless issues that serve to divert attention from what's really happening. We are currently living under an administration that provides as little information to the public as possible and, despite all of the technological advancement with regard to communication and information, the vast majority of Americans are less informed than they have ever been regarding the reality of what's going on both here and abroad. This is due, in part, to a corporate-owned and operated, lapdog mainstream press and a highly effective, mindless entertainment industry that encourages people to numb themselves with continuous and extravagant consumerism. Add to this a public school system specifically designed to dumb students down and prevent them from acquiring critical thought skills, and you have a recipe for social disaster.

Pointing out flaws in the way our economic system and culture has been hijacked by corporate monopolies and other detrimental elements of social control does not equate "absolute" anti-capitalism" or "anti-Americanism," nor does it equate "vague complaints." In order to stimulate thought and arrive at conclusions and solutions, discourse often begins in an abstract and "vague" manner. If you find fault with that, it's your problem. Your "have a solution or shut up" mantra is both trite and counterproductive in itself. Perhaps if you weren't always on the defensive and continuously pigeonholing people, you might see that.

[KingWenclas]

What bothers me is bourgeois folks like Barbara always feigning to speak FOR working people in this country (and making millions doing so) instead of letting us speak for ourselves.
So Barbara slummed for a few months. She doesn't have a clue what it's like working shitty jobs your entire life! Just one more bourgeois fraud.
(Er, Barbara, do you know that real working class writers are out there?)

[wmayhue7]

Winston Churchill said it most clearly:

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries"

[lc2]

King,

Barbara can speak for me anyday, at least until I write my own book. Last time I checked, no one was keeping me from relating my real-life working class experience, least of all Barbara E. Or didn't you notice the guest blog on her website?

So she doesn't know what it's like to do crap work for more than a month at a time. Just take her experience, magnify it by a couple needy dependents and diminish it by a reliable vehicle, and multiply that by 40 years or death, whichever comes sooner.

What do you think she should do -- give up her writerly life with Whole Foods and a gym membership and take a job at WM instead? You can bet your ass that if I ever get a writing deal I won't be doing the underpaid shit work I do now just for the cred.

[Anarcissie]

Eddy: "Also, besides the inherent greed factor, i.e. people working longer makes them more money faster, it also forces ignorance.

If one is too busy and too tired from working 60-70 or more hours a week, they have little time to stay informed, or read things like Barbara E's books. They are reduced to sanitized corporate news bites, which tell them things are just fine (or horrible, depending on the desired perception.)"

On the other hand, in modern capitalism the working class (by which I mean anyone who has to work for a living, and those who depend on them) have to have the _time_ as well as the money to consume the products and services they create. People who are working 70 or 80 hours a week may not consume enough. Moreover, as wages fall (as they are; the present rate of inflation given by the government is a lie) even those who decline to put in the 80 hours and are further down the economic food chain may be _unable_ to consume enough to keep the economy going. The question is not whether there is a breaking point but just where it is.