15 Steps Toward a Happier, Healthier American in 07

1. Get the troops out of Iraq. Of course this is easier said then done, since conditions on the ground have become far too dangerous to allow for an orderly exit. Outward bound truck convoys, for example, would attract roadside bombs and other unfriendly send-offs. The best plan is to find out how thousands of Iraqis are managing to flee the country every day and take the same route.

2. Fight global warming, obesity and traffic congestion by constructing bike paths on all highways and roads.

3. End the war on drugs, thus saving over $30 billion a year. At the same time, gently wean current meth addicts onto Starbucks double shot espresso.

4. Raise the minimum wage to $10 an hour and establish a maximum wage of, say – generously speaking -- $5 million a year.

5. Repair the economy of Mexico so that erstwhile Mexican agricultural workers – displaced by big agribusiness in the wake of NAFTA – no longer have to sneak across the border in order to make a living.

6. Expand Medicare to cover Americans of all ages. (Remember, we just saved $8 billion a month by ending the war.)

7. Require gyms to use the power generated by their cardiovascular machines to provide their own air-conditioning and lighting.

8. Put the President in AA – Aggressives’ Anonymous. We thought he had hit bottom with the November election, when he discovered that nobody likes him. Then we thought that a family intervention in the form of the Iraq Study Group would sober him up. But no, he’s demanding another binge, or as he puts it “surge.”

9. Fix Medicare so it doesn’t require supplementary insurance. Also fill in the notorious “doughnut hole” in Part D, preferably not with Krispy Kreme.

10. Establish wildly overpriced services for people who derive a sense of status from the prices they pay. The New York Times reported on December 12th that colleges find they can increase their popularity by raising tuition. OK, so let’s have a chain of private colleges charging $100,000 a year and up where the price is part of what you pay for. Maybe we need whole segregated shopping zones full of custom-priced restaurants, etc. where the ultra-rich can pay the exorbitant prices they crave, without driving up prices for the rest of us. Entrepreneurs, are you listening?

11. Demand that pharmaceutical companies sell their drugs in this country for no more than they sell them in Canada, or would that be too much of a patriotic sacrifice?

12. Stop CNN anchor chatter. No, Miles, Tony, Soledad and the rest of you: In the few minutes of your time that isn’t devoted to Geico commercials, we don’t want to hear about your weekend.

13. Create a new airline –Libertarian Air– for people who would rather risk being blown up than be treated like potential mass murderers every time they fly.

14. Encourage street fairs, block parties and farmers’ markets.

15. Work less, play more. Or, ideally, get someone to pay you for playing.

Comments

[realpc]

Most of these are actually pretty good, I think. As someone who would always rather bike than drive, I like suggestion #2. But I would go farther with it -- get the police to start giving tickets to drivers who think trying to kill bicyclists is fun.

I thought #7 was my idea. Why the heck aren't they doing that already??

[Barbara E]

Ah, at last we find common ground! And yes to ticketing car drivers who try to kill us.

[lilalia]

Bullseye on every one of your thoughts.

[Lynn]

The "war on drugs" is such a farce and a monumental waste of money that it's tragic that politicians won't even entertain the idea of changing course.

[realpc]

You have to define what you mean by "drugs." What would happen if all drugs were legal? Would you be able to get anything you want without a prescription? There are many very dangerous drugs that have to be controlled. I can't imagine just letting anyone have anything.

On the other hand, if "drugs" just means marijuana, then it might as well be legal, since it is not dangerous. It all depends where you draw the line. If you make crack legal, what would be the result? We can only guess.

Making all drugs legal might get rid of the criminal drug industry. But it seems to me that prescriptions would still be necessary. Are you saying no substances need to be controlled?

[ZSB]

15. Work less, play more. Or, ideally, get someone to pay you for playing.

Finally, Barbara admits her real agenda. That the middle class should pay very high taxes, live in small apartments, and ride crowded, unsafet public transportation so that mode upper middle class, elitst , white women can live their spend their lives living as writers in Burlington, Vermont with free healthcare, free housing, and unlimited college tuition.

[Heavy]

Libertarian Air is obviously a joke, as is the Aggressives Anonymous for Bush. Both are just playing to a frustrated public for approval and make little sense. Is that airline going to fly in special air and to and from special airports that have no contact with the safety-concerned world? Because if some fools roll the dice on airplane safety we all become less safe. All they have to do is plow that Libertarian Airplane into a highly occupied public space.

[lc2]

C'mon, ZSB ... it's supposed to be a joke. But you sound suspiciously like a troll from the past. Or maybe all trolls exist to ferret out potential hypcrisy so they can invalidate everything of value.

Certainly no more hypocritical than yellow ribbons attached to the radio attenae of Suburbans, after all.

[chris]

barbara ostensibly jokingly (though secretly seriously)writes:

1. Get the troops out of Iraq...The best plan is to find out how thousands of Iraqis are managing to flee the country every day and take the same route.

Their moves are hardly a secret. However, this suggestion is another way of suggesting that our military forces in Iraq should go AWOL en masse. Sorry. Won't happen.

She writes:
"2. Fight global warming, obesity and traffic congestion by constructing bike paths on all highways and roads."

I see. Then we will clog our graveyards with bikers killed along highways where cars go 60-70 mph. There are already 45,000 highway deaths per year in the US. Why take a step to multiply this number?

She wrote:
"3. End the war on drugs, thus saving over $30 billion a year. At the same time, gently wean current meth addicts onto Starbucks double shot espresso."

Too funny for me.

Sure, decriminalize all drugs. That's okay. But there will be public health consequences. There's already a war against pharmaceutical companies underway. Who would be sued when someone ODs on his street-bought recreational drug?

She wrote:
"4. Raise the minimum wage to $10 an hour and establish a maximum wage of, say – generously speaking -- $5 million a year."

Ah. The government, or in this case, Barbara, knows what's best for everyone in the country when it comes to paychecks.

What would happen in BarbaraLand? Well, CEOs would relocate corporate headquarters to sites beyond the jurisdiction of BarbaraLand.

Worse, for many, would be the changes in pro sports. All athletes would establish residences outside of BarbaraLand. Maybe US baseball would relocate to Japan.

She writes:
"5. Repair the economy of Mexico so that erstwhile Mexican agricultural workers – displaced by big agribusiness in the wake of NAFTA – no longer have to sneak across the border in order to make a living."

Despite having Vincente Fox as president, Mexico is an oligarchy ruled by a number of powerful families who control a significant portion of everything -- from oil to TV.

Those who control the oil have shown no willingness to increase oil production despite the current high price of the commodity. Nice bunch.

She writes:

"6. Expand Medicare to cover Americans of all ages. (Remember, we just saved $8 billion a month by ending the war.)"

It's commonly stated that 47 million Americans are uninsured. To extend coverage to everyone of every age would require a tax increase of such magnitude the country would keel over in bankruptcy. Canada would look like a tax haven, and that's where a lot of capital would go.

She writes:

"7. Require gyms to use the power generated by their cardiovascular machines to provide their own air-conditioning and lighting."

This is nothing more than the well established concept of co-generation. American industry always tries to utilize every last little BTU of energy available from any and every source.

She writes:

"8. Put the President in AA – Aggressives’ Anonymous. We thought he had hit bottom with the November election, when he discovered that nobody likes him. Then we thought that a family intervention in the form of the Iraq Study Group would sober him up. But no, he’s demanding another binge, or as he puts it “surge.”"

Okay. Well, there's nothing like rooting for the bad guys to win.

She writes:

"9. Fix Medicare so it doesn’t require supplementary insurance. Also fill in the notorious “doughnut hole” in Part D, preferably not with Krispy Kreme."

This issue may trouble some people, but it's part of a larger issue -- The Cost of Healthcare. The more healthcare that's offered, the more that will be demanded. Healthcare costs cannot be contained. Period.

We are brilliant at developing new and better ways to treat every ailment under the Sun. Thus, more and more people will suffer and recover from more and more illnesses to finally expire after very expensive last-ditch efforts. Our generosity will bankrupt the country.

She writes:

:10. Establish wildly overpriced services for people who derive a sense of status from the prices they pay. The New York Times reported on December 12th that colleges find they can increase their popularity by raising tuition. OK, so let’s have a chain of private colleges charging $100,000 a year and up where the price is part of what you pay for."

The entire Ivy League could charge $100K and have no shortage of students. In fact, if ability to pay was one criterion for admission, those schools would still have to reject academically qualified students.

She writes:
"Maybe we need whole segregated shopping zones full of custom-priced restaurants, etc. where the ultra-rich can pay the exorbitant prices they crave, without driving up prices for the rest of us."

Come to New York. Plenty of shopping venues fitting this description exist. You'll find them in other cities around the world, as well.

She askes:
"Entrepreneurs, are you listening?"

They listened, they've arrived and they've got customers.

She fantasizes:

"11. Demand that pharmaceutical companies sell their drugs in this country for no more than they sell them in Canada, or would that be too much of a patriotic sacrifice?"

I see. Government pricing for drugs. Yeah, that'll work. In any case, if the prices were set at parity between the two countries, the Canadian prices would rise. It's that simple. Drug companies have no obligation to sell to Canada. It's done mainly to keep competitors at bay in Canada.

She jokes, sort of:
"13. Create a new airline –Libertarian Air– for people who would rather risk being blown up than be treated like potential mass murderers every time they fly."

Airlines are not in charge of airport security. Airports handle that function. The federal government, that at other times Barbara wishes were omnipotent, is the employer of all those surly security people fiddling with your underwear.

She writes:

"14. Encourage street fairs, block parties and farmers’ markets."

New York City is over-run with street fairs, block parties and farmers' markets. I'm not sure if it's possible to increase their numbers by much.

She daydreams:

:15. Work less, play more. Or, ideally, get someone to pay you for playing."

We have that. It's called pro sports. Sometimes you get paid for playing college sports too. But those pro-sports guys often earn more than the salary cap soon to exist in BarbaraLand.

Meanwhile, it's not likely the women in pro sports will earn the same as men. I'm sure there must be something sexist about that. But if there is, it's all in the minds of fans who would rather spend their money watching men compete rather than women. They must be guilty of something.

[GreggB]

Speaking of resolutions, how about resolving to end the ridiculous and outrageous salary/benefit packages that CEO's "earn" and use as golden parachutes when things go bad? To wit: see the nationwide press coverage of Home Depot's ex-CEO, who just got a cool $210 million dollars for five years "work" and a flat stock price.
Though it seems that this time, the stockholders are restless about it...about damn time, too. This is just the "old boy" network feeding each other.

Boy, his severance sure beats my $200/week (and no severance) on unemployment while I look for a job because my position was "eliminated" due to "budget issues" in November.

Please don't try to tell me that he (or anyone else) is "worth" that kind of money. If he had cured cancer or something, maybe. But shilling nails and plywood? Give me a break!

[chris]

GreggB wrote:

"Speaking of resolutions, how about resolving to end the ridiculous and outrageous salary/benefit packages that CEO's "earn" and use as golden parachutes when things go bad?"

The government has nothing to say about this, nor should it.

Stockholders are a different matter. Is Bill Gates worth $50 billion? By every measure the world says he is.

Frankly, I would not structure pay packages like the one Nardelli got from HOme Depot. But the deal was struck when he signed on -- not when he was booted.

The HD board offered him a big package because he had a history of delivering. If he'd done what was hoped for, his on-the-job compensation would have been higher. And the stockholders would have been pleased.

Anyway, the company cannot stiff him now. He tried. He failed to hit the ball out of the park. But, he had a deal and the company has to honor it. Perhaps some shareholders will file a lawsuit, but it's doubtful there's any way to get the money back.

But what difference does it make to you? In what way does the payout to the Home Depot ex-chief affect you? The money -- and it's not all cash -- isn't coming out of your pocket. And it's not as though Nardelli avoids paying income taxes on all that compensation.

[Ron Davison]

Barbara,

I just discovered your blog and love the way you think. Great list!

[sylvain]

Dear Barbara,

I'm swiss (the french part) and I have found you book Nickel and Dimed by chance. I read it and loved it. I do like the way you are thinking. I am not american but even in Switzerland we've got jobs with very low wages. The reading of your book has inspired me

[Barbara E]

Thanks, Sylvain.

And Chris: You think government is overreaching when it sets a minimum wages, but not when it kicks down doors and confiscates property in the name of the war on drugs? Hmm.

[Anarcissie]

I think in the case of the Drug War that it is not a matter of asking whether the drugs in question are good or bad, but whether they are worse than the Drug War. There is not much doubt that the Drug War has been a massive crime against humanity; millions of harmless people have been deprived of their freedom and sometimes their lives in the name of superstition and sadism. (And often racism as well.) It's not just the waste of money -- it's the damage done by the Drug Warriors with it.

[Anarcissie]

chris: 'But what difference does it make to you? In what way does the payout to the Home Depot ex-chief affect you? The money -- and it's not all cash -- isn't coming out of your pocket.'

It's coming from somewhere. Although I don't know for sure, my guess is that it's coming either from Home Depot's kitty or their stockholders. In that case, Home Depot will suffer and become less competitive, and that in turn will bring the whole industry down a bit. So I would say the $210 million is coming out of everyone's pocket. But once again, we're all agreeing to it. In 2007, that's how we do business -- we give huge, unimaginable sums of money to people who are good at playing corporate politics. Of course, Nardelli could invest the money back in Home Depot, or somewhere. In which case it's all just going around in a circle.

I think there is some question as to whether a sum like $210 million is meaningful to a person. It seems to exist in a different realm than most of us. For instance, it translates to several million hours of labor. You could buy several lifetimes of a working person's labor. What would you do with them?

[chris]

Barbara writes:

"And Chris: You think government is overreaching when it sets a minimum wages, but not when it kicks down doors and confiscates property in the name of the war on drugs? Hmm."

I never said the government is "overreaching" when it sets minimum wages. I said the unintended consequences of raising the minimum wage will outweigh the benefits, if there are any.

Meanwhile, there's little to connect government debates about minimum wage laws and law enforcement tactics to catch perpetrators.

While I would decriminalize most drug use, doing so would create a few new problems while righting a few wrongs. We know a little about group behavior and alcohol. Not everyone is a raging alcoholic. But there are a lot of drinkers in the US. Would drug use reach as far into society as alcohol has? Probably. Would that prove bad? Hard to say.

Meanwhile, the reticence of politicians on the issue of decriminalizing drugs makes it pretty clear they think the outcome of supporting such legislation is too close to call. None are ready to sacrifice their careers on such an uncertain move.

[chris]

Anarcissie, you wrote:

"It's coming from somewhere. Although I don't know for sure, my guess is that it's coming either from Home Depot's kitty or their stockholders."

Of course it's coming from Home Depot. Every nickel HD spends comes from either Operations, Financing or Investing. That's how it goes with all corporations. And management made the decision to grant Nardelli a generours severance agreement WHEN HE WAS HIRED.

He was a big wheel at GE before he arrived at HD. Wall Street was well aware that a guy like Nardelli does not move from GE to HD without a huge severance deal.

Meanwhile profits rose 150% at HD while Nardelli was in charge. Is that bad? Hardly. But the stock is slightly lower today than when he arrived -- because investors expected MORE than a 150% gain.

YOu wrote:
"In that case, Home Depot will suffer and become less competitive, and that in turn will bring the whole industry down a bit."

Not a chance. It's a competitive world out there. If HD's strategy isn't working quite right, then Lowe's will charge ahead.

Your comment suggests you believe there are people who know exactly what to do to make all the money in the world.

You wrote:
"So I would say the $210 million is coming out of everyone's pocket."

Hardly. Nothing is coming out of your pocket, even if you are a customer of HD. In fact, HD might conclude the best way to improve business is to hold a huge sale and slash prices on its entire inventory.

YOu wrote:
"But once again, we're all agreeing to it."

YOu have nothing to say about HD's severance policies. And neither should anyone except the owners of the company -- the shareholders. The company belongs to them, but their interests are served by management. But sometimes things don't go as well as hoped. That's hardly a tragedy.

You wrote:
"In 2007, that's how we do business -- we give huge, unimaginable sums of money to people who are good at playing corporate politics."

Utter nonsense. Corporate leaders earn big pay for the same reason pro athletes earn it -- they have a track record of huge successes.

Nardelli was hired because he proved himself at GE. He didn't bluff his way to the top.

YOu wrote:
"Of course, Nardelli could invest the money back in Home Depot, or somewhere. In which case it's all just going around in a circle."

There is only one circumstance in which Nardelli's compensation would not be re-invested in the economy: If he stuffed cash in his mattress.

Whether you have money in the bank or own stocks, your money is at work, put there by others who aim to maximize it.

If you deposit one dollar in the bank it is multiplied into about $10 by the mechanics of our banking system.

YOu wrote:

"I think there is some question as to whether a sum like $210 million is meaningful to a person."

Irrelevant. Bill Gates has $50 billion. He has already pledged to give most of it away through his charitable trust. It's his. He can do whatever he wants with it.

YOu wrote:
"It seems to exist in a different realm than most of us."

Irrelevant.

You wrote:
"For instance, it translates to several million hours of labor. You could buy several lifetimes of a working person's labor."

And when he buys cars, houses, dinners, vacations, planes, boats, clothes, etc, he's doing exactly that.

YOu asked:
"What would you do with them?"

Do with what?

[Philip]

3 million undocumented workers in the US before NAFTA, 12 million undocumented workers today. Mexican workers are even less able to compete with agribusiness than farmers in Kansas. Right on, Barbara!

[GreggB]

Sorry Chris, but there's a few things you're overlooking.

One big thing is that you completely neglect the corrosive effect on society as a whole by rewarding people with ridiculous amounts of cash, win or lose. My point is that HE LOST. He DID NOT do a good job for HD, so why is he being compensated so lavishly? Example: If I hired a plumber to fix a leaky pipe in my house, should I expect to pay him a great wage if he does a crummy job on my house, but did a great job on his previous customer's house? That's just plain dumb.

I accuse the boards of companies that don't put stiff performance controls into these contracts that have strong financial penalties for CEO's that DON'T perform as promised as being guilty of malfeasance and criminal carelessness with the stockholder's money. These CEO's claim to like risk...let them risk their paychecks like the rest of us do in today's economy. How much better will these CEO's perform if THEIR ASSets are on the line, not just their employees and the company's?

You wrote: "And when he buys cars, houses, dinners, vacations, planes, boats, clothes, etc, he's doing exactly that."

That kind of money could have gone to stockholders as dividend checks, into HD to help grow and strengthen the company, or (here's a scary thought) maybe raising their general employee's wages a little. Instead, it will go into his bank account. Just how many G-V business jets, Aspen houses, and ski trips does this guy need anyway?

Most of these clowns 'reinvest' it all right...in offshore tax havens and in building factories in third-world hellholes that as H.Ross Perot put it, "make a giant sucking sound of American's jobs going overseas."

As far as I'm concerned, if an American businessman is exporting American jobs like that, it is economic treason against the US. The Chinese are laughing their asses off at people like you. What will happen when the Chinese start using our debt against us? (There are signs that it's already starting.)

The fact that he can give some away, a la Gates, is no excuse for him essentially looting the company with the board's permission. The board is supposed to look out for the stockholder's best interest, not help CEO's carry the loot.

It is past time that stockholders rise up and start telling boards in no uncertain terms that this type of BS MUST end. These CEO's are mostly good at blowing their own horns about how great they are (Trump, anyone?) and how rich they are.

Just another version of Social Darwinism, where the few get the lion's share and the rest get screwed. Of this, revolutions are made.

[Kelley Bell]

How about Universal Health Care?

The World Health Organization ranks The United States 67th in quality of health services among other countries of the world.

I made two trips to the ER over the holiday, and spent four hours waiting the first time (before I walked out in discust) and spent twelve hours on the second trip.

I asked the nurse if this was normal, and she said "Only on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays."

If this country has a real emergency, (like the ones or leaders tell us they have disaster plans for,) I am quite sure the people will be SOL.

[paradox]

I finally lived a dream and rode my own Trek carbon frame this year. I blazed on streets, drivers holding out three fingers, four fingers as I kept up. It was stupid but the bike hums with inherent gyro-like spinning power underneath you at forty, I'll never forget it.

I got wiped out and my frame snapped by a bimbo who never saw me. I could ride again, I'm not scared, but I walked away that time. I dunno how much I've got in my karma account, you know what I'm sayin'.

I'm running and lifting now, and yes, I like the rowing machine at the gym. We'll see what happens.

Thanks for the blog. Always liked the picture.

[paradox]

That bike cost $3,600, that was the dream part. I hate this California crassness over throwing prices around, that's not what I'm doing.

[realpc]

You can't ever assume that drivers will see you, unfortunately. They see other cars, not pedestrians or bikes. That's because the ratio of drivers to non-drivers is about ten thousand to one, or so.

Bicyclists are not respected since they are considered too poor to buy a car, and therefore of no value to society. I have a car. I feel I should wear a sign saying "Do not run me over, I have a car and I am not worthless."

So we are a very small minority, especially in the winter. What sane worthwhile person rides a bike in the winter? Drivers do not see us or acknowledge our existence.

So do not expect drivers to obey any laws regarding bicyclists. Some drivers try to be polite but it's just annoying and dangerous, never helpful.

The only way to deal with this is to be utterly paranoid and constantly watch for cars from every direction. Stop at intersections even if you have the right of way.

We have a right turn on red light law here which makes it almost impossible for bicyclists or pedestrians to cross at intersections. Jay-walking is actually the only way to get across the street.

Bicyclists should be seen as heroes who help society by using less oil and causing less pollution. We help society while staying healthy.

[Anarcissie]

chris: 'YOu have nothing to say about HD's severance policies. And neither should anyone except the owners of the company -- the shareholders.'

You're wrong about that. If I don't like the way a company is managed, I can often avoid doing business with them. If a lot of people do that, it's called a boycott. Boycotts can be pretty effective. A really energized population can start cooperatives to compete with businesses they don't like.

In the case of Home Depot, though, I have taken notice of the fact that they seem to go out of their way to hire and train minority workers. I am sorry to see them losing 210 million dollars on account of this Nardelli, however wonderful he may be, because that 210 million might have bought stuff for those workers to sell, opened new stores, or raised wages. It seems to me the Home Depot board of directors has been pretty remiss in this case; Nardelli's parachute could have been just a bit more thinly gilded.

[Anarcissie]

realpc: 'Bicyclists should be seen as heroes who help society by using less oil and causing less pollution. We help society while staying healthy.'

Glad to hear you say that -- I live in New York City and my bicycle is my normal means of transportation, all weather, all year (except I don't do so well on lumpy ice).

This is not a matter of virtue -- it's the best way to get around, if you're up to it. It does take a bit of nerve to confront the traffic, but I'm Irish. Also I do not recommend using an expensive bike for daily transport -- I stick to $100 second-hand disposables, usually 27" medium road bikes from the '80s (Panasonic, Fuji, Schwinn). Thank heaven there are a lot of them around; they don't seem to make them any more.

[Samara]

Yes, I get paid to play. I'm still haven't come to terms with that, so thanks so much for helping me. I find it's difficult to find that support in this society. You've always been so great for things like that, so thanks!

[realpc]

Yes, Anarcissie, after having two bikes stolen in one year I decided to go with second-hand. My current bike cost $50.

As for being paid to play -- there is no way to clearly define work vs. play. I assume Barbara E. means get paid for doing something you like, rather than something you would never do if it didn't pay.

I guess the best definition for "work" might be an activity you must do to survive, whether or not you like doing it.

There has been some research on the "flow" experience, showing that people can get happiness from many different kinds of activities, including those normally defined as work.

I have noticed lately that progressives seem to have an anti-work attitude. They use the derisive term "worker-bee" to describe suckers who have not found a way to avoid having a job. Maybe that goes back to Marx, who considered work alienating. Well he was probably thinking about factory work, which probably is alienating. Many kinds of work are not, though.

[chris]

Anarcissie, you wrote:

"You're wrong about that. If I don't like the way a company is managed, I can often avoid doing business with them."

So what. People avoid doing business with companies for many reasons. Not the least of which is the existence of competitors. If you don't like HD, shop at Lowe's. They're glad to have you.

But as every business leader knows, you can't satisfy every customer. But you do what you can.

You wrote:
"If a lot of people do that, it's called a boycott. Boycotts can be pretty effective.

Name one boycott that amounted to anything. I can name one. In the early 1990s a Korean Deli on Church Avenue in Brooklyn was boycotted by angry blacks who went berserk after the owner/operator caught a black woman shoplifting. They tussled and the store owner apparently slapped her.

Sonny Carson, one of the more vicious members of Brooklyn's black community led the boycott. I visite the deli to see it for myself.

The store was surrounded by black men who intimidated anyone going in to shop. The police formed an inner ring around the store to keep the protesters back.

By the time it was over, Mayor Dinkins quietly helped the store owner relocate to Queens and the Brooklyn store closed.

Despite the calls for the store to become a black-owned and operated business -- due to its location in Flatbush -- it reopened about a year later as -- get this -- a Korean deli. And it's still operating today.

YOu calim:

"A really energized population can start cooperatives to compete with businesses they don't like."

Yeah, but it almost never happens because people don't work for free. Meanwhile, that strategy pretty much undermines the opposition to Wal-Mart in NYC and elsewhere.

If the nitwits claim Wal-Mart pays too little and is tight with healthcare benefits, it's a little more than hilarious if the outraged community responds by starting a co-op where people are required to work for FREE and receive NO benefits at all.

But this is exactly what has happened in Brooklyn. The Park Slope Food Co-op, which has thousands and thousands of members, beats the competition by paying NO wages.

That'll teach a lesson to those guys at WalMart who pay more than minimum wages to employees.

[Anarcissie]

realpc: 'I have noticed lately that progressives seem to have an anti-work attitude.'

I certainly do. However my own work experience has been amusing if not very edifying -- fooling around with computers is entertaining and it has paid very well. Most people's work -- driving busses, washing toilets, shuffling papers, and the factory work you mention, looks horrible to me. I think ways should be found for people to do less of it.

My son disagrees with me. He says work gives people a sense of having a place in the social order and connects them with their communities and thus with each other. For many people work is what gives meaning to their lives. I can't logically refute this argument, but I still think people work too much, or at least put in too much time on the job; many jobs don't seem to involve much production of value, by design.

There is an intrinsic problem in capitalist industrialism in that any need which can be satisfied by the market is met and even overwhelmed before long, making it necessary to create new needs or otherwise increase consumption. In a sense, then, work just creates a need for more and more work regardless of whether people like what they're doing or find the results desirable. At some point people may want to ask where they're going with all this.

[realpc]

Anarcissie,

I agree with your son -- work is one of the things that gives life meaning and makes us feel useful. I don't know if it's possible to get that from driving a bus. I had some boring jobs when I was young and I hated it, but that was motivation to acquire skills. Anyone can acquire skills and escape their boring job.

And some low-skill jobs can be very fulfilling -- home aids who take care of old people, for example, often love their patients and take pride in their work. But actually, doing a care-taking job well really does require some important skills.

"There is an intrinsic problem in capitalist industrialism ... making it necessary to create new needs or otherwise increase consumption."

Yes, but that's the way nature and evolution work. Ever-increasing creative complexity. What can we do? Progressives like progress (or they would use a different name), and progress is what creates our modern mania. (Don't say it's the bad stupid greedy conservatives who pervert progress for their vicious ends. Or say it if you want, but I'll explain why you're wrong).

[Anarcissie]

realpc: '... Progressives like progress (or they would use a different name), and progress is what creates our modern mania. ...'

Actually, I don't like the term "progressive" much as it doesn't specify in which direction progress is to take place. You can progress in some pretty bad directions.

I've been thinking about these incredible, unusable, unthinkable sums of money given to such as Mr. Nardelli and I think that they are evidence that we are coming to an end of a certain phase our economic arrangements. When things get too irrational they eventually break down, although it may be like Will E. Coyote in the cartoons running off a cliff, but not falling until he looks down.

Don't worry, there is not much the government can do about it. They're at the top of the belief pyramid.

[realpc]

Anarcissie,

The class structure levels out at times, but then inequality naturally increases. It has happened many times before. Some people do well and they give their children a head start, and the differences escalate.

The current inequality in America might not be so terrible though, because everyone benefits. Extreme wealth doesn't depend on keeping anyone down (I realize leftists believe it does, but I never saw any evidence for that). Rich people create jobs and pay taxes and give to charity -- not all of them, but a lot more than poor or middle class.

I can understand the envy and resentment, and I agree the ultra-rich have too much control over our political system. But they aren't keeping the rest of us down, and they aren't keeping the third world in poverty. Where is any evidence for that? American capitalists are helping to alleviate world poverty.

God help us when there is no more third world, and the whole world is industrialized and driving cars. I agree we are heading for some kind of disaster, but we are all getting richer thanks to capitalism.

I think everyone should slow down and stop wanting more and more gadgets. But that won't happen. You can't turn off human creativity and curiosity. Even if we could all go back to farming, most would not want to.

[lc2]

Realpc:

Given your last comment, how does our current system differ radically from the era of the "company store?" Do you really not believe that omnipresent advertising has transcended our better instincts and common financial sense? I attribute perhaps 75% of my awareness of this issue to the fact that I do not watch TV, live in a rural area not saturated with billboards and am pretty selective about media consumption in general. Far stronger, smarter people than me have been taken in by "BUYBUYBUYBUY" messages everywhere and "someone" is certainly benefiting from that as a result.

Perhaps I'm more sensitive to this than the average person b'c my spouse works in retail -- but it does indeed seem that conspicuous consumption of superfluous goods is pretty integral to the work-owe-work treadmill.

[chris]

Anarcissie wrote:

"I've been thinkning about these incredible, unusable, unthinkable sums of money given to such as Mr. Nardell and I think they are evidence we are coming to an end of a certain phase of our economic arrangements."

Utter nonsense. The sums are not "unusable." Nardelli will have no trouble spending and investing what is lawfully his. His assets will continue to propel the economy.

Your first problem is knowing nothing about capitalism. If you did, you would know that Nardelli's assets are not unproductive or removed from the economic machinery of the country.

His assets are in good hands and that's that.

[realpc]

lc2,

No one forces anyone to buy unnecessary stuff. There is no excuse for going into debt from buying luxuries. How can you blame the sellers and advertizers?

If you feel outraged by the situation, there is really no villain to blame. You can help by trying to convince people happiness is possible without a humongous flat screen. I don't know how many will believe you. Our technology is amazing and I can understand why people are dazzled by it and want to have it. I don't feel I have time to sit in front of the TV or stereo, so I save a lot of money. But I also don't feel like preaching that everyone should be like me.

And even though I minimize the gadgetry in my life, I still don't want to go back to subsistence farming. Does anyone?

[chris]

lc2, you wrote:

"Far stronger, smarter people than me have been taken in by "BUYBUYBUYBUY" messages everywhere and "someone" is cerainly benefiting from that as a result."

In other words, strong smart people are not really strong or smart or exercising their personal desires to consume. No. Instead, YOU have decided they are dupes "taken in" by even smarter, stronger people who are so crafty they are able to give people what they want for amounts they willingly pay.

As you say, "someone" is benefiting. How about the buyer? The seller might earn a profit. But the buyer enjoys what his money has bought, whether it's a CD or a new Gulf Stream private jet.

Where's the problem?

Workers have been paid to produce the goods and services and buyers have forked over the cash to get what they want.

[lc2]

Realpc: No outrage here, just some bewilderment.

I think there's a humongous gulf between subsistence agriculture and conscious consumption. As I said before, retail puts food on the table at my house, so I'm hardly unaware of the benefits of a merchant economy. Just like the dad in "Coal Miner's Daughter," I go to the store 3-4 times a week, telling the kids, "C'mon, it's time to give the company its money back."

However (and this responds to chris's comment as well)I don't think it's self-righteous to point out what most people readily acknowledge: that we end up working to pay for a lot of stuff we don't need and in fact would probably be better of without. It's not a matter of personal preference any more, either: it's a matter of species survival to simplify one's ecological footprint, and consumption of, say, gadgets that will be obsolete and therefore trashed within a matter of years, is not a good idea.

Have either of you read the book "Subliminal Seduction"? We were required to read it in high school, and it had a lasting impact on me. It pretty much puts the lie to the argument that we consume advertising messages consciously. I believe that if more people were made aware of the insidious nature of advertising in general, there would be outrage about the whole business.

Instead we've apparently decided that cell phones, for instance, are necessities. I have explained my reluctance to buy a cell phone to everyone who asks and when I explain why there is no rational reason for me to have one, people tend to agree. But my lifestyle is quite similar to that of the people asking. So .... why do they have a cell phone again?

[realpc]

lc2,

I really can't stand gadgets, maybe because I'm old. But kids love them and every generation will love them more, and we have no control over that.

I use certain aspects of technology, such as, obviously, the internet. I work as a software developer so I understand more or less how computers work, and I'm not afraid of them and I don't hate them. But I am not in love with technology and gadgets and don't feel like spending all my money on them.

I personally like to keep life simple whenever possible and I could live on a low income if I had to. I practice what a lot of progressives preach, but do not practice themselves. And I am not a progressive.

I don't think the love of technology can be controlled, and I would not blame it on advertising. Creating technology is fun, and, for lots of people, using it is fun. You can't fight the natural desire to enjoy life and have fun.

I don't play computer games, but I love computers because of the amazing access to information and communication. I love Google and blogs, and you probably do also.

Our crazed civilization is not going to slow down unless there are serious shortages or catastrophes. No amount of preaching or warning will stop people from trying to have fun, or access information, or create new technology.

[Anarcissie]

me: "I've been thinking about these incredible, unusable, unthinkable sums of money given to such as Mr. Nardell and I think they are evidence we are coming to an end of a certain phase of our economic arrangements."

chris: 'Utter nonsense. The sums are not "unusable." Nardelli will have no trouble spending and investing what is lawfully his. His assets will continue to propel the economy. ...'

What I mean is that Nardelli cannot spend the money on himself, at least not without throwing most of it away. He can buy a dozen Rolex watches but they won't tell time any better than my $12 Casio, and will look like gaudy trinkets compared to the elegant minimalist design of mine. So he has to give the money away, try to trade it for political power, compete for symbolic goods like original art, or -- invest it, as you indicate. That is, put it back where it came from. He cannot get the labor back out of the money. It's all symbolic stuff upheld by magical belief. People get upset about people like Nardelli having so much money, but past a certain point the money is effectively meaningless.

As for propelling the economy, that takes more than finance capital. Capital is worthless without workers and consumers. We have seen that Mr. Nardelli cannot consume his wealth. Can he work? God knows, but having more money than you can know what to do with is not much of an incentive. There is also the question about where the economy is being propelled. If it just burns up all the resources to produce superfluous Rolex watches it's not going much of anywhere or producing things anyone can really use or enjoy except in a very abstruse way.

[Anarcissie]

realpc: '...The current inequality in America might not be so terrible though, because everyone benefits. Extreme wealth doesn't depend on keeping anyone down (I realize leftists believe it does, but I never saw any evidence for that). Rich people create jobs and pay taxes and give to charity -- not all of them, but a lot more than poor or middle class. ...'

I think if you look into charitable giving you will find that the poor give more, both proportionately and absolutely, than the rich. That is the gist of three or four news stories I have read on the matter. I believe it because my prejudices run that way, of course, but also it makes sense: the poor _need_ charity and thus it is in their interests to contribute to a social milieu in which it exists, is taken for granted.

I think the main problem with economic inequality is that if it is very great then those who have power, being of course either rich themselves or friends of the rich, lose touch with practical matters. They don't know the value of a dollar. You see that with the present American government, which has spent about 600 billion dollars to kill about 600,000 Iraqis. That's a million dollars each, with no end in sight, and no practical purpose whatever accomplished. (For awhile the slaughter played well in domestic politics, but now that has worn off.)

However, as long as people continue to give their money to the rich and worship them, there isn't much that can be done. You can't really say the poor are being kept down if they agree with the system.

[realpc]

Anarcissie,

The problems in Iraq can't be blamed on inequality in the US. The rich leaders have no more desire to lose a war and waste money than the rest of us.

To understand the Iraq disaster, we have to look at the various motivations and errors that contributed. People like things to be simple, but they almost never are.

The leader who got us into Iraq happens to be born rich, but we don't know if it would have been different if he were self-made. I feel absolutely certain that he wanted to succeed and expected success would be easy. That kind of faulty judgement does not come from being born rich. It comes from over-simplification and lack of foresight, which all humans are guilty of.

To many Americans, invading Iraq seemed like the perfect solution to our Middle East problems. Since we had been attacked, we had an excuse to attack someone else. Of course Iraq did not attack us, but our leaders over-simplified and threw all Middle Eastern Muslims into the "terrorist" cateogry.

They wanted an enemy nation to bash, as we did after Pearl Harbor. WWII was a glorious victory for America, and I think they were hoping to re-create that scenario. Instead they re-created Vietnam, as some Democrats feared.

Actually, it isn't WWII and it isn't Vietnam, because the present is never exactly like the past. There is great tension between Americans who think it's WWII and those who think it's Vietnam, but we really should be seeing it as it is. We should try to win, if the experts think there is any chance we can. If the "Vietnamers" have their way, it will be another Vietnam, a total loss.

[chris]

Anarcissie, you wrote:

"What I mean is that Nardelli cannot spend the money on himself, at least not without throwing most of it away."

More nonsense. Bill Gates, through his charitable trust, is giving away most of his $50 billion fortune. He is unquestionably "spending it on himself."

The idea that you can define the nature and judge the manner in which someone should utilize his assets is preposterous.

However, if that's the road you wish to follow, why not campaign against all venues aimed at collecting the discretionary cash spent by those with few means?

The slot machines covering acres of floor space at casinos are usually operated by people with far fewer means that Nardelli. And they all lose while they're in Atlantic City, Las Vegas or anywhere else legal gambling exists. Actually, they all lose at illegal gambling too.

You wrote:
"He can buy a dozen Rolex watches but they won't tell time any better than my $12 Casio, and will look like gaudy trinkets compared to the elegant minimalist design of mine."

It's not likely he's stuck at this level of consumerism. What's more interesting is your view that all a person can do with money is spend it on adornments of ultimately frivolous items that would likely be abandoned out of boredom rather quickly.

You wrote:
"So he has to give the money away, try to trade it for political power, compete for symbolic goods like original art, or -- invest it, as you indicate."

I've seen no signs Nardelli has political ambitions on any level. John Corzine, former head of Goldman Sachs, spent a bundle to win a senate seat and the governor's election in New Jersey. A lot of people were paid by Corzine to help him achieve his goal. That's good, right? Corzine retired from a job that paid him millions and millions a year and switched to a career paying him a tiny fraction of his former income. Why? Because he sees himself as a force for the betterment of the citizens of New Jersey and perhaps he has presidential ambitions. Good for him.

You wrote:
"That is, put it back where it came from."

More nonsense. Nardelli is most likely to enter into a different phase of the business world. He might follow other top corporate execs into the world of Private Equity, which is all about big private investments in companies that need restructuring. For that, he'll be expected to cough up cash to buy the target companies.

YOu wrote:
"He cannot get the labor back out of the money."

Oh. So is that the goal of people who deposit money into bank accounts? What kind of goofiness are you uttering?

You wrote:
"It's all symbolic stuff upheld by magical belief."

Well, all economic matters depend on the belief of the participants in every economy. People may be totally ignorant of banking and how it works, but as long as they put their cash in the bank for safekeeping, they are active participants in our capitalist system.

You wrote:
"People get upset about people like Nardelli having so much money, but past a certain point the money is effectively meaningless."

This sentence is a non-sequitur. However, the money is never "meaningless." Or do you believe the total size of the US economy renders it "meaningless" because it is so huge?

You wrote:

"As for propelling the economy, that takes more than finance capital."

No kidding. YOu have a firm grasp of the obvious. Freedom, private ownership and rational government are two more requirements for prosperity.

You wrote:
Capital is worthless without workers and consumers."

The world has no shortage of either. Thus, your example of the obvious is meaningless.

YOu wrote:
"We have seen that Mr. Nardelli cannot consume his wealth."

We've seen nothing of the sort. He could easily spend it all acquiring real estate for speculative purposes or upon which to build residential or commercial structures. He could buy some large airplanes. He could buy companies. His wealth is a drop in the bucket compared with Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and many other people. Thousands of corporations control more spending and financing power than Nardelli could ever dream of on a personal level.

YOu wrote:
"Can he work?"

You can be sure that's what he'll do.

You wrote:
"God knows, but having more money than you can know what to do with is not much of an incentive."

Very few wealthy people have more money than they know what to do with. One reason they're wealthy is knowing very well what to do with their assets. That has pretty much everything to do with becoming wealthy.

You opined:
"There is also the question about where the economy is being propelled."

Here's the answer, and I know I'm right: Nobody knows where the economy is being propelled.

No one is able to anticipate where a free economy will go. We don't have much trouble predicting the future of places like North Korea and Cuba. All you have to do to ensure predictability is remove freedom. then you can predict a lot.

You wrote:
"If it just burns up all the resources to produce superfluous Rolex watches it's not going much of anywhere or producing things anyone can really use or enjoy except in a very abstruse way."

The watchmakers of the world produce billions of cheap watches. Rolex produces a relative handful of watches.

In any case, there's no shortage of people willing to claim virtually any product of human invention is superfluous or worthless or unnecessary. Sometimes those people are called Luddites.

But mostly they want control of other people's lives, or they simply envy others. Either way, as long as they don't gain the power to dictate desires, we'll be okay.

[Anarcissie]

me: "What I mean is that Nardelli cannot spend the money on himself, at least not without throwing most of it away."

chris: 'More nonsense. Bill Gates, through his charitable trust, is giving away most of his $50 billion fortune. He is unquestionably "spending it on himself." ...'

Well, in a way you're agreeing with me -- I said that a person couldn't spend millions on himself; he'd have to give it away, waste it, play status games, etc. However, suppose we say that charity is spending it on oneself. Gates still has his predicament: he can give away 49.9 billion dollars and it won't make a bit of difference to his life. The only way you can do charity effectively is take something away from yourself, as in the parable of the widow's mite (Mark 12:41-44). I imagine Gates will feel constrained to keep a few hundred million. What he's _actually_ doing is shuffling papers with a bunch of administrators and lawyers and getting taken to dog-and-pony shows, the same as when he was playing big businessman. He's stuck. Getty is another example.

Of course, one could have worse problems. The main point I was trying to make is that these huge volumes of money no longer represent anything real, like labor or goods.

[brynn]

Right on, Barbara! A great list. I'm with you!

[Brian Barth]

As a Canadian. I have worked for several United States companies. Weird USMC dress codes. I am glad I can do research again with a Canadian company. Our country is will get its freedom back!

The Maple Leaf Forever

[Jenn Benn]

Like them all, but love number seven, with a twist. It could even be a selling point to get more people into the gym regularly: I personally loathe the treadmill, but if I knew that my panting would help to pay the electric bill of a needy family, you betcher spandex I'd show up daily and walk the extra mile.

[Ryan M. Powell]

It all starts with #4.

I'm amazed to have finally "heard" someone other than myself say the minimum wage should be at least $10 an hour. And I say that as someone who would like to own a small business (pizzeria).

A lot of people think most small businesses would be unable to survive if there was a higher minimum wage. Owners say they can't afford to pay employees over $6 or $7 an hour.

That's just ridiculous.

If a small business owner can't afford to pay his or her employees at least $10 an hour, it's the OWNER who is not worth $10 an hour, not necessarily the employees. If any of the employees are not worth $10 an hour, they're simply not worth hiring or retaining. A competent owner should realize that.

When you pay people $7 an hour, you end up employing two kinds of people: 1) People who work like they're worth only $7 an hour, and 2) People who bust their asses for you, only to realize it's all for nothing, at which point they either (a) become infinitely less productive or (b) they quit.

I'm "Type 2b" myself.

Of course, all competent owners realize that their business can only succeed if it offers something the market demands, like a quality product, great service, a unique experience, etc. But offering all that good stuff isn't enough if no one even knows the business exists. Even if you brew the best coffee in the world AND people know you exist (because they see your shop each day as they walk into Starbuck's), they'll keep going to Starbuck's until you provide a good reason for them to try your shop instead.

It's called effective marketing, and it's an essential component of every successful business model. Most small business owners are clueless--or, let's say, incompetent--when it comes to marketing, which is why they "can't afford" to pay their employees more than $7 an hour. Not even the best marketing mind can change that if the owner is unwilling to listen and learn.

Ryan M. Powell
http://www.aimlessmovie.com
http://www.blog.aimlessmovie.com

[chris]

Ryan M. Powell, you wrote:

"Most small business owners are clueless--or, let's say, incompetent--when it comes to marketing, which is why they "can't afford" to pay their employees more than $7 an hour."

Okay, but the pizza business is a strange one.

I live in Brooklyn, NY, home to DiFara's Pizza, located a couple of blocks from my house.

DiFara's regularly wins the popular vote for serving the "best" pizza in New York City. If you're a student of pizza, you can check the Chowhound.com website for NY pizza and read all about DiFara's.

The joint was founded by Dom DiFara quite a few years ago. Dom is not what you would call a "people person."

And despite the throngs of people clogging up his dining area most days, Dom has one speed at which he works: S-L-O-W. And he couldn't care less if you complain about the wait.

His kids are worse. They are his only two employees and they only work for him part-time. Both are surly and his daughter is obviously a mental case. His son has a few problems too, and that means he usually stays out of sight in the kitchen in the back where he makes the veal parmesan meatball wedges. But sometimes he's out front by the pizza oven serving the customers with as much sourness as he can squeeze out of his face.

Dom never advertizes and he never experiments. He's got his routine and that's all there is to his business. And he seems to be number-one in NYC.

Service? Forget it. Warm atmosphere? Hardly, except in summer when he keeps the doors wide open to let the heat of the overn out, no matter how hot it is outside on the sidewalk. No air conditioning. Think about that as he sweats over the dough.

Is the pizza good? Yes. It's good. But I wouldn't vote it the "best" in NYC.

Oh yeah, lastly, his location. His place is on Avenue J in Brooklyn, which is the heart of a conservative Jewish community. That means many people who live near his shop don't eat there because his pizza recipe doesn't conform to Jewish dietary laws. Thus, to make his business the popular success that it is, people flow in from all over the city.

I don't know how he does it. But whatever the secret of his success, it won't appear in any business text or book on entrepreneurship. He breaks every rule of smart business operation, but he still comes out a winner. Good for him.

[Ryan M. Powell]

Chris,

I'm familiar with the name "DiFara's Pizza," although I haven't had a chance to try it yet. From what little I know, I assume it's a pizzeria Napolitano with a coal-fired oven, similar to Lombardi's or Totonno's, as opposed to the slice joints all over New York. Does that sound right?

Hey man, I'm not going to try to explain why DiFara's is so successful. Sometimes people just get lucky. It sounds like, in this case, the customers think the quality of the pizza is more important than the family's collective personality. They're willing to put up with some bad shit to get some good shit. (Your description actually reminds me of "Do the Right Thing.")

New York is so much different than just about every other American city, too, with the population density, the ease of getting just about anywhere you want via the subway, and less of a car culture. I admit I'd be a little afraid of opening a pizzeria in New York because life in New York City is so much different than life in Columbus, Ohio. I understand the market here, and I know it's almost impossible to get a good pizza in Columbus. Conversely, I don't necessarily understand the NYC market, and you can get fantastic pizza just about everywhere in New York.

I love New York, though. Feels like home to me, like I'm supposed to live there. Maybe someday.

By the way, my favorite pizza in New York, of the 10 or so pizzerias I've tried, is Ray's of Greenwich Village, at 6th Avenue and 11th Street. A close second goes to Ray's on Prince Street, I believe. Famiglia sucks. So does Famous Original Ray's.

Ryan M. Powell
http://www.aimlessmovie.com
http://www.blog.aimlessmovie.com

[chris]

Ryan,

I looked at your website. Interesting stuff. I did a little of what you're doing when I was somewhat younger than you are now.

Meanwhile, I don't think DiFara's is coal-oven pizza. The secret is Dom's recipe. He's got his way of preparing the sauce and I think there's a particular oil he uses. His crust is thin.

Maybe you should hit him up for a job. He could sell a lot more pizzas if he optimized the operation of his facility -- and he could maintain the unique quality of his pies.

As for the pizza shops you mentioned, yeah, they're all favorites of mine, especially Totonno's.

You're right about the NY pizza market. And DiFara's benefits from being about a block from a subway stop. But a huge percentage of DiFara's fans drive to the joint. Driving places in Brooklyn is much easier than driving and parking in Manhattan.

Anyway, pizza is an obsession with at least a couple of million New Yorkers. It seems everyone is on a quest to find the best pizza -- and then to alert the foodie media, which is always hungry for a hot lead to an undiscovered dining gem.

[chris]

Ryan M. Powell,

Check this posting from Chowhound.com about DiFara's Pizza.

Subject: Pizza on the Web

http://www.chowhound.com/topics/361315

[Anirban]

Why stop at the upper salary cap of 5 million Is it you and your friends know best they wont worth a dime more or your book deal wont cross the 5 million line. Pretty sad you want everything from our pocketbook.

[child]

good site
http://www.childplanet.us/

[ainslie dewar]

That's the best suggestions i have heard in a long time.
MADE MY NIGHT.
perceptive.
love everyone of them.

[Michael Price]

"Libertarian air thanks those customers who dealt with that terrorist attack. Please remember to apply to have the cost of your ammunition and/or the cleaning of your broadsword refunded."
Oh, and no. 8 won't work due to the "pychiatrist's lightbulb" effect, he has to want to change.

[Cathy Goodwin]

I like #13 - Liberation Air.

And I would add, "Take a hard look at our justice system - no money to pay for school counselors, infinite resources to lock up kids who commit crimes."