I gotta say that the fact it's corporate sponsored makes me already regard the entire stunt with a default of quiet distaste.
Why? I don't get this. The money has to come from somewhere, and it's not a government project. The alternative is to make people pay to stream it. We all know that wouldn't work.
The explanation would take too long. :-)
I have a problem with capitalism, is what it comes down to. In particular, American capitalism.
I get the same feeling, but it's mostly because as a child I was traumatized by Matilda and I've had a strong distaste for consumerism ever since.
I kinda got the same feeling when I first heard about it, but after seeing it and how they actually presented it, never really mentioning or advertising Red Bull aside from a sticker on the capsule, logo on the parachute, and a little thing on the wall in the control room, I gotta say it was pretty tasteful.
I get the same feeling, but it's mostly because as a child I was traumatized by Matilda and I've had a strong distaste for consumerism ever since.
I thought that was about the Trunchbull abusing children by locking them in closets and gaining ESP? Or is it a different story? I dislike conspicuous consumption, but I can't dislike capitalism 100%. I feel that regulated capitalism, a capitalism tempered by socialism, provides us with a certain amount of ingenuity, a fluid market of goods and services that fluctuates to meet demand. Any natural system without competition stays still. Some things are not best left to capitalism. I feel that it is not the be-all-end-all solution to our economic systems. The market is reactive, rather than proactive, thus to nip problems like the mortgage crisis in the bud we need to have widespread government oversight. Corporations have only the goal of getting more money and growing, so we need to make sure there is something else we can throw into the mix to make sure needs are taken care of and that no-one is exploited.
I get the same feeling, but it's mostly because as a child I was traumatized by Matilda and I've had a strong distaste for consumerism ever since.
I thought that was about the Trunchbull abusing children by locking them in closets and gaining ESP? Or is it a different story?
Yeah, but what freaked me out the most was her used car salesman dad, the scene where her family was eating TV dinners and watching trashy television, and that bit with the chocolate cake.
I never made the association as a small child with consumerism, I always thought of her family more as intellectually barren, vapid jerks. I thought the book was more about compassionate intellectuals vs. anti-intellectual sadists.
See, my dad's family fled Spain during the Spanish Civil War, so I have roughly the same feelings about government-integrated managed economies.
Can you elaborate?
It was mostly a joke. Everyone in my family was a fascist, and Franco undoubtedly led to an explosive Golden Age for Spain. My grandparents left because the socialist system that was in place before Franco allowed for no upward mobility based on merit; even afterwards, seniority determined one's salary and position, at least in the medical field.
I should note that they returned to Spain for a bit with their kids, but they left again for the US when they realized that the new boss was the same as the old boss.
Man, the Spanish Civil War was pretty awful. (I always end up being more on the commie side, though, when I see books and movies about it.) Pure communism fails for exactly the reason you mentioned: No competition, too much bureaucracy. Pure capitalism fails because some things that everyone needs like water and health care shouldn't exist solely to make money. Socialism provides the infrastructure and safety nets, Capitalism provides a way to go above and beyond those basics, a way upward.
I've always wondered: What if the utopian government could provide people with a tiny dwelling with water and plumbing, electricity, access to unlimited information and education, basic basic medical care, and three meals of nutritious gruel a day, without requiring any work of them? I bet a lot of people would not do anything, but I guarantee you, if they had the ability to move upward and invent things, and make money, many people would. People will still seek fame and acclaim, still seek the ability to do something with their existence. What if what you did was not for survival, but in fact for fulfillment?
I love the Spanish Civil War (as a period of history to study). The clash between fascism and communism was kinda cool, but mostly I'm fascinated by how divided the anti-Franco forces were, and how they were still able to unite when it came down to it.
My only problem with Pan's Labyrinth was the sympathy rendered unto the socialists. That's not to say that the fascistas were upstanding gents; they definitely weren't. However, my great-granduncle came within 30 seconds of being executed by socialists in front of his own family, so neither side was exactly "the good guys."
I mean, more or less. The Fascists brought Spain into the Spanish Miracle, but then Franco died and the country became parliamentary--cut to financial shambles, the EU miracle, and now shambles again.
Interesting that your family fled the Spanish Civil War, WUB. My family fled Portugal, in part, to get away from Franco's good buddy next door, Salazar. Although, I think most of the downfall of Salazar's regime after his death was due to the Colonial Wars in Africa and less about the economic issues of the "Estado Novo" (AKA "New State") policies he put in place.
My only problem with Pan's Labyrinth was the sympathy rendered unto the socialists. That's not to say that the fascistas were upstanding gents; they definitely weren't. However, my great-granduncle came within 30 seconds of being executed by socialists in front of his own family, so neither side was exactly "the good guys."
Do you know which faction of Socialists? There were a few of them.
Am I the only person who finds it somewhat ironic that the Koch brothers, the big time Tea Party supporters that they are, the folks who probably want to shut down all government funding for PBS, also are major PBS donors?
PBS is a major bugaboo of the paranoid militant crowd. Public brainwashing and all that. The rest of the base just loves any cut that isn't to defense.
No need to get defensive about it. I was just curious. There were wings of the Socialist/Popular armies that weren't war criminals.
I'm not being defensive, merely frank. It's also hard to make any argument like that about part of an army that nearly massacred large portions of my family. ~_^
PBS is a major bugaboo of the paranoid militant crowd. Public brainwashing and all that. The rest of the base just loves any cut that isn't to defense.
Perhaps... but if they hate PBS so much, then why are they also donating money to it?
Am I the only person who finds it somewhat ironic that the Koch brothers, the big time Tea Party supporters that they are, the folks who probably want to shut down all government funding for PBS, also are major PBS donors?
Considering PBS would be fine without the government money? Nah.
Considering PBS would be fine without the government money? Nah.
Really? You think educational programming of that quality would be created without government subsidy? PBS wouldn't even exist today without its long history of government support.
Considering PBS would be fine without the government money? Nah.
Really? You think educational programming of that quality would be created without government subsidy? PBS wouldn't even exist today without its long history of government support.
Case and point: TLC, formerly known as The Learning Channel, was originally funded by NASA, the Department of Education, and a few other government agencies to be an educational network, and it actually did pretty well at that for quite some time. Then it became privatized.
PBS is a major bugaboo of the paranoid militant crowd. Public brainwashing and all that. The rest of the base just loves any cut that isn't to defense.
Perhaps... but if they hate PBS so much, then why are they also donating money to it?
The Paranoid Militant makes up like 1-2% of Republicans. Most of the rest figure PBS will be fine without the government assistance.
Remember the "private charity is better than government programs" school of thought is is held by the vast majority of republicans. Just because they don't want the government funding something doesn't mean they think it's not worth while.
edit: +1 to what Dragonmaster Lou said about TLC. Privatization is not always a good thing.
Comments
I dislike conspicuous consumption, but I can't dislike capitalism 100%. I feel that regulated capitalism, a capitalism tempered by socialism, provides us with a certain amount of ingenuity, a fluid market of goods and services that fluctuates to meet demand. Any natural system without competition stays still.
Some things are not best left to capitalism. I feel that it is not the be-all-end-all solution to our economic systems. The market is reactive, rather than proactive, thus to nip problems like the mortgage crisis in the bud we need to have widespread government oversight. Corporations have only the goal of getting more money and growing, so we need to make sure there is something else we can throw into the mix to make sure needs are taken care of and that no-one is exploited.
I should note that they returned to Spain for a bit with their kids, but they left again for the US when they realized that the new boss was the same as the old boss.
Pure communism fails for exactly the reason you mentioned: No competition, too much bureaucracy. Pure capitalism fails because some things that everyone needs like water and health care shouldn't exist solely to make money. Socialism provides the infrastructure and safety nets, Capitalism provides a way to go above and beyond those basics, a way upward.
I've always wondered: What if the utopian government could provide people with a tiny dwelling with water and plumbing, electricity, access to unlimited information and education, basic basic medical care, and three meals of nutritious gruel a day, without requiring any work of them? I bet a lot of people would not do anything, but I guarantee you, if they had the ability to move upward and invent things, and make money, many people would. People will still seek fame and acclaim, still seek the ability to do something with their existence. What if what you did was not for survival, but in fact for fulfillment?
It now shows Honey Boo Boo.
Remember the "private charity is better than government programs" school of thought is is held by the vast majority of republicans. Just because they don't want the government funding something doesn't mean they think it's not worth while.
edit: +1 to what Dragonmaster Lou said about TLC. Privatization is not always a good thing.