This speaks for itself.  This article is from a Chicogo newspaper, written by someone who thinks they know what's wrong with the US / World economy.  By writing the article, he's clearly showing what's wrong.  It's people like him.

http://www.suntimes.com/business/savage/2464546,CST-NWS-savage05.savagearticle

   Recently a discussion wandered into the area of disturbing films.  I consider myself a bit of an expert on the subject.  I guess I'm always looking for films that confirm my suspicions about the darker side of human nature.  (Ironic, considering what follows.)  There's a page listing my finds for "Most Disturbing Films" on my web site, -but it may be unreachable right now as the site's reconstruction is stalled due to the lack of a decent Web design program.  It will be available in the near future.
    A movie came up in our conversation that I'd never heard of.  The title was, "The Girl Next Door" and after recently watching it, this becomes the first new film to be added to the list in several years.  
     It is based on a true story and a bestselling novel by Jack Ketchum, telling the story of a foster child abused by a step mother and her four sons.  I have to say that the character of the step mother is the most repulsive character that I've ever seen in a movie.  You want to crawl onto the screen and strangle her.  Slowly.  The way the story is presented, the viewer feels complicit in the crime.  It makes you feel guilty and dirty and squirm in your seat, which, to my mind, is the hallmark of a disturbing movie.  
    So why watch something like this?  Why voluntarily subject yourself to a movie that has you clenching your fists by the end?  As I said, these movies are interesting studies in human nature and I found this one particulary interesting because of its treatment of the "shadow".  
    The shadow within our minds and personalities is created by the unresolved, unaccepted conflicts, insecurities and fears we've collected throughout our lives.  If not confronted, this shadow is often projected onto other people in the forms of prejudices, bullying and blaming others.  One of the things I learned in my psychology classes is that the things we find strongly annoying in others are often the things that we've hidden inside our own psyche.  "Shadow Work" is part of many self-help and self-actualization programs and is considered essential in personal development.  
    "The Girl Next Door" is an excellent demonstration of this as you can trace all of the bad things that are happening back to the neurotic nature of the mother and how she transfers all of her suppressed feelings onto her victim and her boys.  There is no doubt that this is an extreme case, but as such it is transparent and easy to understand.  
    I see the same things, though certainly to a much smaller and saner degree, in many of the social interactions I witness.  Often, in a group of children (or adults) one individual gets singled out as a scape goat and is the brunt of bullying and abuse.  That individual becomes the receptical for the manifestation of the collective shadows.
    This theme, examining how low human nature will plunge in unusual and adverse conditions, seems to be making a revival right now, especially in the post apocalyptic genre.  Witness "The Road" and "The Book of Eli" along with countless novels, -including many written for young adults.  But this theme has always been there, whether it be in "The Plague" by Camus or "Lord of the Flies" by Golding.  We're good at exposing the dark side of human nature, but seldom do you see a movie or a book which illuminates that darkness in the form of some kind of resolution.  (An exception would be "Star Wars").  -Maybe there's a book idea for me there.  
    Anyway, if you're in the mood for something repulsive one night, check out "The Girl Next Door (Jack Ketcham 2007)".
  

    I just finished reading Blackout, by Conie Willis, and I have to say that I have never been as disappointed in an ending as I was after readin
g almost 500 pages of drawn out description only to find that the author was unable to finish telling the story.  Connie Willis seems sto be a one trick pony.  Her trick is to present us with the details and trivia of a historical drama, thinly disguised as a sci-fi novel.  In Blackout, a number of historical time travellers go back to London during WW2 only to find out that they are inexplicably stuck there.  Despite the endless, Dickens-like description of life during the Battle of Britain, this time travel mystery was the only thing which prevented me from abandoning the book after only 100 pages of reading.  The information is repetitious and the characters act in ways that makes it difficult to feel compasion for them. 
    Willis is obviously trying to fill the mandate of her fictional historians by showing life during this historical period, and to her credit she does just that.  However it is often done with a maticulous attention to trivia which makes the book too long and drawn out.  She could have come to the point much more efficiently and spared us the message on the last page:
    "For the riviting conclusion to Blackout, be sure not to miss Connie Willis's All Clear..."  Riviting?  I think not.  I, for one, feel cheated.

    One of my favorite Blog sites is "Whatever", by John Scalzi.  It is very much an inspiration for my own blogging style and topics.  Check it out at http://whatever.scalzi.com 

    A recent entry was the result of a blog discussion between him and Robert Sawyer as to whether SciFi authors will be able to make a living a decade from now.  I think the broader question involves not just SciFi writers, but any authors or publications. 

    We are in the process of digitizing the printed work industry just as we did the music industry.  E-books in various formats are available on Kindles, I-Pads and even cell phones.  Novels, comic books, magazines and newspapers are being turned into digital media to make them more readily available to the consumer through these new paths. 

    What prevents the same thing from happening to the printed word industry as happened to the music industry?  Digital availability means easy and quick reproduction in ways that sacrifice copyright and the ability of the author and publisher to make a living.  I can already point you to newsgroups where e-books are freely available along with cracks for e-book readers.  Some devices, such as Kindle, maintain control over their content, but it is only a matter of time before hackers find a work-around or generic versions of the devices make that control useless. 

    We would then face a situation where all authors would not receive fair payment for their work and where magazine sales would become financially untenable.  Musicians are able to make money with concerts and merchandising.  I don't see that as an option for authors.  Speaking tours?  As Scalzi and Sawyer point out, writers have to consider themselves lucky if they can get speaking engagements. Movie or TV deals are rare and I can't say I've ever seen someone wearing a t-shirt for a novel or author (except maybe "Ender's Game").  Combine that with what seems to be a growing trend not to read at all, and the butchering of the written language on Facebook, Twitter and MSN and we may be staring into a crisis for western culture. 

    Well that's OK.  It seems our brains are getting smaller anyway.   

    Further to the previous entry, here are a few excerpts from a recent article by Yukio Hatoyama, the new PM of Japan. 
    "How can we put an end to unrestrained market fundamentalism and financial capitalism, which are void of morals or moderation, in order to protect the finances and livelihoods of your citizens?'
    "In terms of market theory, people are simply personnel expenses.  But in the real world people support the fabric of the local community and are the physical embodiment of its lifestyle, traditions and culture.  An individual gains respect as a person by acquiring a job and a role within the local community and being able to maintain his family's livelihood."
    "Our responsibility as politicians is to refocus our attention of those noneconomic values that have been thrown aide by the march of globalism.  We must work on policies that regenerate the ties that bring people together, that take greater account of nature and the environment, that rebuild welfare and medical systems, that provide better education and child-rearing support and that address wealth disparities"
    These are the ideals that a lot of the G8 protesters wanted to bring to the forefront.  Globalization is for the most part American Globalization and consists of the "unrestrained marked fundamentalism” spotlighted by Hatoyama.  In the last few years we have seen the product of that policy and there can be little doubt that it needs reconsideration.  Unfortunately, the radical protestors and anarchists were effective in eclipsing any meaningful protest ideas.  In the coverage I saw of the G8 in Toronto, about 25% was dedicated to the rather impotent events of the actual meeting, and 75% was dedicated to pictures of two burning police cars.  No mention was ever given to the ideas being proposed by legitimate protestors. 

  I did the rounds to do some routine shopping the other day.  In the Rogers store there were all kinds of perks for people subscribing to new services, including discounts on plans, deals on new hardware, etc.  Afterwards I went to the bank and found the same thing on the posters displayed there.  All kinds of incentives for people opening new accounts.  I commented to the bank manager that it was a shame that all these privileges were being offered to new customers, not to loyal customers.  It seemed a bit unfair and even insulting, like someone overtly spending all their time with a new friend and ignoring the old ones.  The manager had little to say, but mumbled something about how there were lots of perks for old customers as well. 
  I had no intention of getting into a discussion with him (or him with me, I'd bet), but I gave the question some thought afterwards. 
  When I was a kid and opened my first savings account at a bank, I remember the interest rate being 11 or 12 percent.  The teller took time to explain to the young, novice customer that saving was good and could yield you more money over time because of interest.  Properly managed long term investments could yield as much as 18 % interest.
That sounds absurd in a day and age where you're lucky if bank accounts don't cost you money in the form of service fees.  These banks are collecting 18% on outstanding VISA balances and more people are taking out loans and mortgages now than ever before.  Regardless of the recession, in the years immediately before it and since, banks are on record as profiting by billions of dollars.  And yet my mother received a letter from the bank the other day regretting that she can only yield 1% on a long term investment coming up for renewal.  Interest on savings accounts is barely noticeable, unless you have a substantial amount as a balance. 
  Not only is customer loyalty a thing of the past, but so too is employee loyalty.  In the name of "cutting costs" banks and other institutions (who are not in any real financial difficulty) lay of experienced workers so that they can pay salaries lower on the wage scale and cut back on benefit costs.  "Thank you for your 20 years of devoted service.  Now bugger off so we can hire some young and cheaper labor to take your place."
I know it sounds cliché, but greed has totally taken over.  Decisions are made, not with any humanistic values in mind, but purely on the criteria of profit margin.  The decisions might as well be made by a computer.  (IN my next entry I'm planning to bring up some ideas from the current PM of Japan, who has some interesting solutions to this.)  I am not anti-capitalistic, but this is a form of mechanical, heartless capitalism which is out of control and out of touch.  We have forgotten that it is in the best interest of society to provide opportunities for all.  We have forgotten that the loyal customer or the loyal employee deserves credit.  The loyal customer who is not valued will cease being a loyal customer.  Why not go surfing from one company to another in order to best benefit from the perks?  Similarly, don't think that those new, young employees haven't noticed how they treated the old loyal ones.  Do companies really expect them to work hard when they witness how little that hard work is valued?  It's not good for the system.  That kind of capitalism (-I guess you could call it fundamentalist capitalism-) erodes human values in a way that causes the system to degrade over time. 
  If my cell phone carrier gives me perks for loyalty, I'm more likely to put up with inconveniences before switching to another company.  That strengthens the system.