The LuLac Edition #1970, March 4th, 2012

Charles Murray, author of "Coming Apart".


Patrick Murphy, Democratic candidate for Pa. Attorney General.

CHARLES MURRAY’S “COMING APART”

There is a book out currently called “Coming Apart”. It is written by Charles Murray. In the book, Murray writes about the different classes that exist in this country. The start of the book focuses in on the date November 21st, 1963. Murray outlines the type of society was on that day and lists the day of JFK’s assassination as a turning point culturally in this country. Murray writes that America’s upper class has a working knowledge of the lower class but not much empathy for it in the current society. The new lower class meanwhile is not separated by poverty, like in the old days. Poor people in the 30s, 40s, and 50s did not have the same “toys” wealthy people had. Today’s poor people in America are not without running water, TV, or basic necessities of life due to help from charities, churches and the government. But the poor are in poverty because they have withdrawn from the culture that has makes up the American mainstream. He writes: America is coming apart. For most of our nation's history, whatever the inequality in wealth between the richest and poorest citizens, we maintained a cultural equality known nowhere else in the world—for whites, anyway.
Over the past 50 years, that common civic culture has unraveled. We have developed a new upper class with advanced educations, often obtained at elite schools, sharing tastes and preferences that set them apart from mainstream America. At the same time, we have developed a new lower class, characterized not by poverty but by withdrawal from America's core cultural institutions.
Here’s an example I use all the time. When I was growing up, I was exposed to American culture in every shape and form via television. A basic entertainment show like Ed Sullivan would have a grab bag of entertainment ranging from an acrobat to a concert cellist. Talk shows like Mike Douglas and Merv Griffin had the latest Broadway star, an opera singer, a comic, a politician, a juggler and a rock band. Mixed with Buffalo Springfield was an aria from “Carmen”, a ballet dancer and maybe a comedy team. There wasn’t a point in our lives where we didn’t know an entertainer. We weren’t rich, some of us were coming up to the middle class from near poverty. But we were striving. And we weren’t culturally poor. Murray makes the point that as the 20th century moved into the 21st, a sea change happened between the classes. The poor became impoverished in culture and the rich, skating far from their middle class roots were totally disconnected to what the real folks were feeling and doing. Murray writes that Europe has already made a change and you can see that reflected in the various changes there. Plus many of our political leaders have warned that the decline of America is going to be our last link with the continent. The secularization of Europe is yet another symptom. Europeans have broadly come to believe that humans are a collection of activated chemicals that, after a period of time, deactivate. if that’s the case, saying that the purpose of life is to pass the time as pleasantly as possible is a reasonable position. Indeed, taking any other position is ultimately irrational.
The alternative to the European syndrome is to say that your life can have transcendent meaning if it ids spent doing importantly things=raising a family, supporting yourself, being a good friend and a good neighbor, learning what you can do well and then doing it as well as you possibly can. Providing the best possible framework for doing those things is what the American project is all about. When I say that the American project is in danger, that’s the nature of the loss I have in mind; the loss of the framework through which people can best pursue happiness.
The reasons we face the prospect of losing that heritage are many, but none are more important than the twin realities that I have tried to describe in the previous chapters. On one side of the spectrum, the people who run the country are doing just fine. Their framework for pursuing happiness is relatively unaffected by the forces that are enfeebling family, community, vocation, and faith elsewhere in society. In fact they have become so isolated that they are often oblivious to the nature of the problems that exist elsewhere.
The book is pretty fascinating. There also is a test to take to see how culturally aware you are. Here’s that link: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/289259/outside-whale-john-derbyshire.
By the way, I got a 12 which says I’m culturally elite. I’m everything the 1 per centers are…..except for the fortune. In short, the book looks at white America and its classes. “Coming Apart,” depicts members of white elites as hypocrites living in a bubble and the white working class as succumbing to moral decay. Check out the book and see what you think.

RUSH SAYS I’M SORRY

Rush Limbaugh apologized for his remarks against the Georgetown Law Student who testified before Congress last week. Limbaugh was pressured by people who threatened to boycott his advertisers. Had they not taken that action, he would not have apologized. As I stated in the comments section here yesterday, with Rush, the more outrageous he is, the more money he makes. When people threaten any little piece of that livelihood, he caves. Here’s the apology in full:
"For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week. In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke.
I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress. I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities. What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Where do we draw the line? If this is accepted as the norm, what will follow? Will we be debating if taxpayers should pay for new sneakers for all students that are interested in running to keep fit? In my monologue, I posited that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone's bedroom nor do I think it is a topic that should reach a Presidential level.
My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices."
I don’t know if this is going to have the same effect that the Don Imus controversy had a few years ago on Rush’s career. Rush is on a lot of radio stations that use the show as its rating anchor. So his demise will not be a complete wipe out. But he will lose advertisers. Despite his mea culpa, , “Carbonnite” has dropped their sponsorship of the Limbaugh program. Locally, I’m told WILK had a number of texts (over 1,000 I was told, some of them robo texts) in opposition to his comments.


MURPHY SAYS KANE NOT ABLE

Not only is the Democratic race for Attorney General being fought on the debate floors but also on social media. From Sheet Metal Workers Local 19 ‘s Facebook and Twitter pages: Patrick Murphy's opponent for PA Attorney General, Kathleen Kane says she's a Democrat. But her family's trucking company, Kane is Able pays their workers well under a fair wage. Kane isn't the kind of Attorney General Pennsylvania Working Families deserve! And then there’s this salvo from the Murphy campaign: In a number of public appearances, Kathleen Kane has claimed to support workers' rights. She asks voters to trust her on this issue. But her record and her campaign finance report raise serious doubts about her commitment to improving wages and safety standards for working families.
Kane and executives from her corporation, Kane is Able, where she served as an executive (according to Federal Election Commission reports), have put $2.3 million into the race for Attorney General. Just to be clear, that accounts for more than 98 percent of her campaign funds. At the same time, Kane is Able has consistently and adamantly opposed the right of workers to organize.
As the Pennsylvania Conference of Teamsters pointed out in a recent letter, "Kane is Able has refused to pay their workers a living wage or improve safety conditions, creating a culture where workers fear to lose their jobs if they even discuss joining a union.” (letter attached)
Now, Kane is trying to buy this election with millions in profits from a fiercely anti-union company.
The company’s disdain for organized labor is well documented by the company itself. In a series of 2009 newsletters, Kane executives call labor unions unnecessary, corrupt, and bad for business. (As of last week these newsletters can no longer be found on the company website, but PDF copies are attached)
In July 2009, Kane is Able CEO Richard Kane talks about the importance of customer service and says:
"I strongly believe that these values thrive in a non-union company. I am convinced that being a non-union company best positions us to grow our business even in challenging times."
In the April 2009 newsletter, Kane Chief Operating Officer Harry Drajpuch criticized legislation that would make it easier for workers to organize and called unions corrupt:
“The Employee Free Choice Act will make it easier for unions to ‘represent’ you, with all the corruption and associated union dues you’ll be forced to pay.”
Given this disgraceful history of union bashing by her corporation, Kathleen Kane has some important questions to answer:
1. Does Kane agree that unions are unnecessary, that allowing workers to organize for better wages is a threat to corporate welfare, and that organized labor is corrupt, as her fellow Kane executives have charged? If not, when will she demand a public apology on behalf of Pennsylvania's working families?
2. If she believes in the right of workers to organize, what specifically did she do as an executive to ensure that Kane employees could exercise their Constitutionally protected right to form a union?
3. If Kane says she believes in the right of workers to organize, when will she openly insist that the executives of her corporation publicly invite labor leaders to meet with their employees?
4. Does Kane support the Employee Free Choice Act?
5. Does she agree with former Kane COO Harry Drajpuch that unions are corrupt or does she believe that Drajpuch was trying to scare employees?
The truth is that Kane has no good answers. Even if she disagrees with her corporation’s open hostility toward their workers’ right to organize, her campaign is entirely beholden to the corporation and their wealthy interests.
Candidate Kane’s rhetoric doesn’t match Executive Kane’s record. Working families in Pennsylvania need to trust that their Attorney General will fight for them, not just for the very wealthy.