Ok, so I started writing a piece on the recent roll-back of Dodd-Frank rules. And I’m going to be honest, I spent about 5 hours trying to read shit about it – and I have no idea how this will impact us.
They didn’t roll back the protections I know I would be up-in-arms about (which are really the “Consumer Protection Act” and until this rollback I thought they were the same bill because I think I’ve always heard them talked about together). But, I pretty much have the philosophy that anything the Koch brother supports, I should probably oppose on principle.
I am concerned this deregulation will lead to bubbles. Bubbles like 1929 or 2008. I’m not going to try to reiterate the arguments – there are people way smarter than me explaining (or trying to!) the issues at hand.
What I’ve decided to say is this: Think about it.
Well, my question for anyone reading this is: who benefits? Who benefits from rolling back these regulations? Over 600,000 new homes were constructed & sold in 2017. I’m pretty sure the loaning business isn’t doing poorly. In fact… banks made record profits in 2017.
Damn. It’s like those regulations weren’t “slowing” business. Unless of course those regulations might have been preventing banks from doing shit “the easy way” (which I should write why easy =/= best). And what will their impact be? Another bubble? Do we really think banks learned from the 2007/2008 financial crisis? Do you?
Here’s my thing. I’ve been re-watching Parks & Recs for something “mindless and fun” and Ron Swanson is adorable. And his instance that people use capitalism as a be-all-end-all runs on an assumption that people work with some kind of ethics/honor. But they don’t. Throughout History there are a billion and five examples of someone being incredibly unethical.
- We wouldn’t need regulations if people could work with ethics/honor.
- We wouldn’t need these regulations if people weren’t acting with greed.
- We wouldn’t need any regulations if people weren’t stupid and selfish.
These things being unfortunate realities – we need some kind of regulation. I am as guilty of the next person of seeking the best deal even when I know that company is rotten. I’ve shopped at Walmart. I think they are evil, but damnit sometimes I just don’t have time and money and energy to go hunting the deal… and I need toilet paper now. I’m not proud that my own selfishness gets in the way of “the right thing” but it happens. Knowing Walmart isn’t allowed to employee 9-year-olds HELPS. And don’t kid yourself – pun intended – if it was legal Walmart would pay 20 cents an hr to 9-year olds to be cashiers.
Herland, Charlotte Perkins Gilman
I saw this on a list of “early sci-fi books written by women” and DAMN. DAMN. It was written as a serial and then published as a book in 1915. Women got the right to vote in 1919. Just FYI – that means this woman-written-science-fiction-utopian-novel about a society of women-only (literally, parthenogenesis – virgin birth no men society).
It was short and sweet and fun to listen to (via Librivox). The premise is three American men discover/get to this little land which has been protected by mountains & cliffs for two-thousand years. With no men. Because the men killed each other.
I did get a little tired of the word “motherhood” because the over arching philsophy of these women is motherhood. And so everything he (the imaginary male protagonist writer) “explores” about this utopia deals with this core concept.
It is fascinating. I finished it on my way home and immediately wanted to write my thoughts, but that’s actually really hard. I’m going to have to chew on it for awhile. Was she making fun of “motherhood” in some places or did she really think that “motherhood” was the ultimate ideal for humanity. She definitely thinks men are the only reason humanity has wars or fights.
And, I was warned so it didn’t catch me off guard, the author had a thing for eugenics – which granted was a thing in the early twentieth century. She was not saying one race over others (apparently these women looked like all the races) but breeding out “defects” such as needing glasses or behavioral problems…. yeah, so that’s a thing I don’t want anyone surprised by.
Ok, so without being spoilery; this book is reminescent of books like The Island of Doctor Moreau and The Call of the Wild in tone and pacing. Low “action” and high “thoughts” but it isn’t boring by any means. Gilman definitely keeps coming back to certain actions so the reader isn’t JUST reading a treatise. And there is a mystery that gets hinted at and hinted at and the reveal feels natural. And not surprising. And still a hair shocking simply because the narrator was so surprised by it.
My Review: go read it to expand your horizons, but keep it in the context of its own time.
Given all the discussions both in politics and society, I feel like this needs to be said again. And Again. And Again….
I am struggling. I am struggling soooo hard with this book right now. In general, I like Brandon Sanderson’s books, but I picked up Way of Kings from the library and…. I am slogging.
I blame his editor. His editor needed to look him in the face and say “Dude. You don’t need to say everything six times. It’s one book. and four main characters? FOUR? You need to work up to that kind of multi-protagonist shit.” Seriously, that doesn’t count the like 8 times there have been little aside-sort of things.
I can tell this book was written post-Wheel of Time… I think he picked up some of Jordan’s bad habits.
It’s an interesting world and the protagonists are well-written (it is still Sanderson and he does write interesting characters). The magic is kind of fascinating and I will drag myself through it, but LAWD, I am struggling with it.