It was the shock of seeing two research maps of Toronto, the first showing the income diversity of the city in 1970 and the second showing the changes 30 years later, that woke me up. The middle class in Toronto has vanished like an endangered species, replaced almost entirely by low income groups and the poor. And slowly expanding urban enclaves for the wealthy in the very best locations, of course.
Is this true across the country or out here on the East Coast? I don't know. I do know that when we were leaving Ontario seven years ago, there was a significant migration of middle class people moving out of the city to the rural suburbs. So perhaps other cities are experiencing similar shifts.
What I do know is what I see on second hand TV, most of it American. Online, I've scanned a whole new batch of shows dealing with the collapse of the American Dream. Saving Grace, Weeds, Breaking Bad, Jericho, Dexter and Lost are all are variations on post-apocalyptic themes. Here, good people are driven to do bad things in the face of bad times or end times.
The police and authority figures are either shadowy, or partially corrupt heroes fighting the after effects of the collapse. Or either blindly honest or totally corrupt dumb stooges.
To be clear, these dreary sagas aren't exploring new creative territory, they're reflecting the fears of the public, especially the lower middle and working classes, in the wake of 30 years of socio-economic decline. It seems that there's only so many home foreclosures, and so much unemployment and minimum wage survival that ordinary people can take before society disintegrates completely.
At least that's the picture being portrayed metaphorically in these TV dramas. For a change of pace, one could tune-in to reality TV or the news, though these are may be even more depressing in a cultural sense. But in the end, none of the dots seem to get connected in the mainstream media.
After the Aurora, Colorado movie theatre shooting, movie critic Roger Ebert told us that the shooter, James Holmes, was just another insane publicity-seeker who wanted to see himself on the news. While Ebert extolled gun control (which, ironically, seems to the the last thing Americans want as evidenced by the rush topurchase handguns in the wake of the Aurora shooting), he self-servingly shied away from making the connection between real life violence and screen violence but goes on to cite the main character in Taxi Driver as an example. And with that observation he makes my point. Movies project who we are and where we are. It's a circular, symbiotic relationship: us to the screen and the screen to us.
And just where are we? Canadians and Americans are now trying to disengage from the longest war in our histories. Afghanistan is in its tenth year. And now our forces are advising in Libya. We don't publicly call these wars in the Middle East what they are: a race to beat the Chinese to the largest oil reserves on the planet.
So if our TV shows have lost their moral compass, there's an underlying reason. The West itself has lost its moral compass.
Here at home our government is following the American pattern. It's getting rid of social statistics, the long-form census. Among the reasons for doing that could be that the government suspects that the economics of ordinary people are nosediving across the country, and the less said the better, with the exception of Alberta, of course. And to get ready for the social fallout and the cutting back of the social safety net, it's getting tougher on crime, building new prisons and ramping up our military forces.
Speaking of which, Canada is now setting up seven new mini-military bases around the world, micro-mirroring the American strategy. According to Gen. Walter Natynczyk, we're building them in order to have the "ability to project combat power/security assistance and Canadian influence rapidly and flexibly anywhere in the world."
Now, why in hell would Canadian peacekeepers want or need to project combat power anywhere in the world? What does this have to say about our basic international civility?
Meanwhile, the federal government is running a wide open resource economy, deregulating restrictions to that sector as fast as it can. The U.S. and China need oil and we're happy to oblige, including selling off ownership to Chinese state-owned companies (like the CNOOC-Nexen deal now in the works). Closer to home, the provincial government is eerily neutral on gas fracking, while, ironically, Irving Oil's partner, Repsol, is bailing out of its new LNG facility due, in part, to a glut in the market of cheap natural gas.
On the other side of the resource issue, as we've read, Canada has been clawing back its environmental protection services with massive cuts to front line staff in Environment Canada, while muzzling the rest of its science staff. The focus is on resource extraction while our manufacturing industries, especially in Ontario, are still in the tank. And that spells more unemployment and an ever-shrinking working middle class.
And if they won't go back to work for minimum wage driving taxis, we'll cut off their employment insurance and import immigrants who will. It's now the perfect system: a Third World reality in the middle of our own.
In the end what few of us are willing to admit is that it's all connected—from Wall Street deregulation to the next Travis Bickle waiting across the street.
But what can we do? Until the working middle classes, like the government's knowledge workers—Canada's scientists and environmental protection workers—find the courage to walk off their jobs and join forces with the protesters, ordinary people won't stand by them.
They, and we, are still paralyzed by fear, and still too willing to take our narcotics via television to tune our minds back into reality. Or perhaps we haven't had our very own personal wake-up call yet.
Is this true across the country or out here on the East Coast? I don't know. I do know that when we were leaving Ontario seven years ago, there was a significant migration of middle class people moving out of the city to the rural suburbs. So perhaps other cities are experiencing similar shifts.
What I do know is what I see on second hand TV, most of it American. Online, I've scanned a whole new batch of shows dealing with the collapse of the American Dream. Saving Grace, Weeds, Breaking Bad, Jericho, Dexter and Lost are all are variations on post-apocalyptic themes. Here, good people are driven to do bad things in the face of bad times or end times.
The police and authority figures are either shadowy, or partially corrupt heroes fighting the after effects of the collapse. Or either blindly honest or totally corrupt dumb stooges.
To be clear, these dreary sagas aren't exploring new creative territory, they're reflecting the fears of the public, especially the lower middle and working classes, in the wake of 30 years of socio-economic decline. It seems that there's only so many home foreclosures, and so much unemployment and minimum wage survival that ordinary people can take before society disintegrates completely.
At least that's the picture being portrayed metaphorically in these TV dramas. For a change of pace, one could tune-in to reality TV or the news, though these are may be even more depressing in a cultural sense. But in the end, none of the dots seem to get connected in the mainstream media.
After the Aurora, Colorado movie theatre shooting, movie critic Roger Ebert told us that the shooter, James Holmes, was just another insane publicity-seeker who wanted to see himself on the news. While Ebert extolled gun control (which, ironically, seems to the the last thing Americans want as evidenced by the rush topurchase handguns in the wake of the Aurora shooting), he self-servingly shied away from making the connection between real life violence and screen violence but goes on to cite the main character in Taxi Driver as an example. And with that observation he makes my point. Movies project who we are and where we are. It's a circular, symbiotic relationship: us to the screen and the screen to us.
And just where are we? Canadians and Americans are now trying to disengage from the longest war in our histories. Afghanistan is in its tenth year. And now our forces are advising in Libya. We don't publicly call these wars in the Middle East what they are: a race to beat the Chinese to the largest oil reserves on the planet.
So if our TV shows have lost their moral compass, there's an underlying reason. The West itself has lost its moral compass.
Here at home our government is following the American pattern. It's getting rid of social statistics, the long-form census. Among the reasons for doing that could be that the government suspects that the economics of ordinary people are nosediving across the country, and the less said the better, with the exception of Alberta, of course. And to get ready for the social fallout and the cutting back of the social safety net, it's getting tougher on crime, building new prisons and ramping up our military forces.
Speaking of which, Canada is now setting up seven new mini-military bases around the world, micro-mirroring the American strategy. According to Gen. Walter Natynczyk, we're building them in order to have the "ability to project combat power/security assistance and Canadian influence rapidly and flexibly anywhere in the world."
Now, why in hell would Canadian peacekeepers want or need to project combat power anywhere in the world? What does this have to say about our basic international civility?
Meanwhile, the federal government is running a wide open resource economy, deregulating restrictions to that sector as fast as it can. The U.S. and China need oil and we're happy to oblige, including selling off ownership to Chinese state-owned companies (like the CNOOC-Nexen deal now in the works). Closer to home, the provincial government is eerily neutral on gas fracking, while, ironically, Irving Oil's partner, Repsol, is bailing out of its new LNG facility due, in part, to a glut in the market of cheap natural gas.
On the other side of the resource issue, as we've read, Canada has been clawing back its environmental protection services with massive cuts to front line staff in Environment Canada, while muzzling the rest of its science staff. The focus is on resource extraction while our manufacturing industries, especially in Ontario, are still in the tank. And that spells more unemployment and an ever-shrinking working middle class.
And if they won't go back to work for minimum wage driving taxis, we'll cut off their employment insurance and import immigrants who will. It's now the perfect system: a Third World reality in the middle of our own.
In the end what few of us are willing to admit is that it's all connected—from Wall Street deregulation to the next Travis Bickle waiting across the street.
But what can we do? Until the working middle classes, like the government's knowledge workers—Canada's scientists and environmental protection workers—find the courage to walk off their jobs and join forces with the protesters, ordinary people won't stand by them.
They, and we, are still paralyzed by fear, and still too willing to take our narcotics via television to tune our minds back into reality. Or perhaps we haven't had our very own personal wake-up call yet.
A simple sort of dinosaur might respond as follows: we can't do better than go back to that old grouch "Uncle Karl" as a touchstone regarding the relationship between base and superstructure. Yes, I know it's now considered too unsupple to use straight-up, but it's a good reference point. That said, I would add that not all entertainment evocative of this relationship is necessarily "dreary." I though Lost was pretty cool in its dopo-tutto, time-travel-happy semi-incoherence. Maybe that's just because I felt an affinity with the Jurassic-like settings – they filmed the show in lush Hawai'i. Pretty people on a timewarp-island speaking occasional Latin, fighting smoke monsters, and blowing stuff up. Whaddya want, anyway? It's a tough audience around here, brother, as Desmond would say.
ReplyDeleteNow then, where were we? Ah yes, where are we? C'est là la question. I suspect that we are in a plunder-phase of pomo capitalism, wherein the already wealthy and the superwealthy participate gleefully in round upon self-reinforcing round of asset-stripping in relation to the poor and the middle class, or what's left of the latter. The sorry urchins still have some money, dammit, and that situation can't be allowed to stand. There must be nothing but a few hyper-privileged winners with all their riches stowed safely in the Cayman Islands (or perhaps even on that island from Lost – thanks Jon Stewart for that connection!) and hundreds of millions of losers with no Cayman-wampum to stow.
Perhaps that sounds like a losing strategy, an unsustainable fantasy on the part of the nations' Thurston Howells; ultimately, it may well prove unsustainable. Why shape a society and a future out of the maxim, "Not only must I succeed, others must fail"? Go figure. The problem for America's non-Thurstons and un-Sheldons is, "how much pain and suffering for the ordinary person lies along the stretch from the wealthy's attempt to get from now to nirvana only to find that nirvana is a wasteland no shoring up of fragments or ruins will allay, and no waters heal?"
This problem is a pressing one for the following reason: SYSTEMS CAN SUSTAIN THEMSELVES FOR A HELLUVA LONG TIME SERVING ONLY THEMSELVES AND NOT THE HUMAN BEINGS WE NAIVELY SUPPOSE THEY'RE DESIGNED TO BENEFIT.
That's my simple-dino two cents' worth. The status quo ante in American health insurance is a fine example of that proposition's truth, by the way: the insurers keep on making good money while access to care dwindles, no end in sight to either phenomenon. Or at least until that Kenyan commie B. Hussein went and messed it all up, anyway….
Well, maybe it's all for the best -- if human voices woke us, we would drown.
I always sleep with mask, fins and snorkel, just in case. None the less, it's usually bird voices that wake me.
ReplyDeleteThe post apocalyptic ( or pre-apocalyptic ) theme has been pretty hot in Hollywood since the 1980's -- remember the Road Warrior series and Escape from New York and the like. Hell, H.G. Wells' War of the Worlds was a mega hit and probably still is. I should mention Falling Skies and Walking dead as more of the still popular genre. The latter is about Zombies and a quick check of Amazon will show you the flood of 'Zombie apocalypse' themed books. The sporting goods catalogs I get are filled with Zombie targets and specially labeled anti-Zombie ammunition. And then there are all those "Rapture" books. Hell, the sole survivor, decline of civilization theme has always been popular. Even before Noah.
But I hesitate to read too much into it, particularly in a country that gets preached to about the coming rapturous disaster and lakes O' fire for the unbelievers and army-geddon every Sunday. We are indeed fascinated with danger and love to see it everywhere, love to invent it -- sometimes everywhere but where it is.
But the romantic appeal to the reader is to imagine that one is, like Robinson Crusoe, the sole survivor, or at least amongst the surviving few and of course has all the survival skills and adequate ammunition, holy water and supplies to continue to survive. Hence the Prepper people with the bunkers and the Zombie-Killer ammo, convinced that the world is falling apart.
But I think that to tie it in with Mr. Holmes, a mental patient with schizophrenia and orange hair and apparently thought he was living in a comic book, is a stretch. I really don't think such a sudden transition from serious student to a homicidal Batman nemesis is explained by any general American anomie. Like the guy who climbed that tower in Texas decades ago, it's more likely explained medically. I seem to remember that that fellow had a brain tumor.
To make random acts of violence harbingers of any sort is stretching it as well, or so I think. I'm only saying that the level of fear doesn't reflect the level of danger very well, nor does the level of gun control seem to be related to the frequency of gun crime. I'm thinking a bit of pragmatism is in order -- and a little less of the phobic reaction we get when encountering a snake. In my opinion the discussion has been dominated -- as least as concerns amplitude -- by people who are terrified of weapons or at least more so than they fear vicious and aggressive sociopaths.
I'm thinking that perhaps we need some kind of nut control. I can think of a number of these armed rampages that stem from a diagnosed Schizophrenic buying guns. Why can't we talk about enforcing or bolstering the laws against that rather than cringing in mortal terror and crying "gun control" hoping to make those nasty guns magically go away.
If Mr. Holmes's purchases had been reported to law enforcement, and law enforcement had taken notice as they would be required to, at least in Florida: if his psychiatrist had been required to report him to some authority at least, as I think the law requires, things might have gone differently. For my part I'm sadder about the people who died last week because they couldn't afford a doctor and sadder still about the children abused and killed by their parents and the youngsters killed by gang violence. It's a huge number.
Edge:
ReplyDelete"So if our TV shows have lost their moral compass, there's an underlying reason. The West itself has lost its moral compass."
Yes, indeed. I fear that lacking any reasonable moral authority, rapidly losing any economic clout yet demanding that the world obey us as "leaders of the free world" leaves us only militarism to back up the posturing. I worry more about this than anything else.
Please note a slight difference in accent that changes the sound of "conquer" to "concur. Lets just say, I agree. When the only high value jobs left in the U.S. are in the military-industrial complex, it says a lot about the future course and direction of the country.
ReplyDeleteUnless you are routing for "The Return of the Neo-Cons," it will be a real o'bummer if Obama isn't re-elected.
i love your blog, to express your views, this is the correct way.
ReplyDelete