Commentary: “Let’s end disposable marriage”

Leah Ward Sears wrote an interesting article (one of the few I find on CNN) which can be read
here.
It talks about the “re-establishment of equity and balance and sanity within the American family”, and that it should be made more difficult to get married.  I’ve heard sarcastic comments that a marriage license should involve taking a course and so forth.  Marriage, in itself, has altered considerably in terms of the morals and the legalities involved, and divorce has gone right along side it.  We hear repeatedly one famous Hollywood couple getting divorced after a short time, one or both parties hook up with another Hollywood name.  Just what HAS changed with marriage and divorce, and what more really needs to?

Changes in morality have certainly underpinned how we have gone from divorce not being an option to being an option for almost any reason.  Many moons ago, Christians were not allowed to divorce at all except in extenuating circumstances, more often than not at the whim of the male population.  Today, most of my generation has heard the ominous “one in ten” statistic.  I have friends who have been divorced, and who are currently in one stage or another of it.  The tie between common morals and marriage/divorce are inseparable, but like most things in modern society, one is not keeping pace with the other.

At our most fundamental, human beings were not designed for monogamy instinctively.  It’s impossible to imagine a world of human beings where sexual instincts were allowed and acknowledged freely, and yet more and more we hear of alternative lifestyles coming to the forefront as human beings explore freedom of sexuality.  Marriage really began as an institution, one that essentially was the purchase of a daughter from a father.  Love was sometimes there, and sometimes the father would veto his daughter marrying one man in favour of a more wealthy one simply because the father’s returns would be higher.  Other cultures developed arranged marriages as a societal norm.

Once women in Western society were no longer legally considered the property of men, the playing field began to even.  However, it was still considered abnormal for a woman to NOT want to get married–the idea was, you finished high school, and eventually you got married and had kids.  Divorce was still slanted towards the man, though–a man could commit adultery and his wife would still have one hell of a time getting a divorce.

In her commentary, Sears writes of her brother, who went through a painful divorce and ultimately committed suicide because he was considered “a mere visitor of his children”.  This would seem to be extreme.  However, she believes that

“…..the United States and a host of Western democracies are engaged in an unintended campaign to diminish the importance of marriage and fatherhood. By refusing to do everything we can to stem the rising rate of divorce and unwed childbearing, our country often isolates fathers (and sometimes mothers) from their children and their families.”

a mere visitor of his children.

What herself and ultimately her brother, as so many people appear to believe, is that the only way of life is to get married, have children, and stay together for the rest of your natural lives.  However, this is more and more becoming at odds with the current awakening of sexuality, and leading to a huge moral impasse on what exactly marriage is and what it’s for.

Although religious adherents prescribe a spiritual union, nation-states rarely pay it much heed.  The only thing governments are concerned with in terms of marriage is the legal contract–the financial union.  Married couples present more of an opportunity for tax income, and for the economy because a combined income generally means more spending power.  This is the same within all marriages, regardless of the religion or their varying ceremonies, and is virtually ignored by the government except on a statistical level.  Hold on, all you religious fanatics: I’m not trying to take away from the spirituality of marriage, for you.  For the increasing majority of us who either don’t subscribe to a religion, however, we need to rethink the reasoning behind marriage if we wish to curb the divorce rate.

Because of the ever-increasing openness of human sexuality, we are becoming more and more aware that the concepts of love and sex are not necessarily tied together.  Two years into an otherwise successful marriage, and one or both partners come to the realization that the “spark” is no longer there, and decide that love is gone, therefore marriage should be over.  These people typically go looking for new relationships, that “spark”, repeatedly, mistaking each spark for the real thing.  Is it possible to lose that spark and still maintain a marriage?  It may come as a surprise to some people that the marriages with the most longevity involve couples who agree that love can also last in the form of a close friendship, and while they agree not to “play the field”, it becomes more about companionship than that initial “spark”, especially after all the children have moved out on their own.

A lot of couples have touted the concept of the “open marriage”–where both partners maintain their relationship but are able to have sexual relations outside of the marriage, or “swinging”, where couples freely engage in sex with other couples.  What does this mean for divorce rates?  Guess what….the majority of couples who are in open marriages or “swinging” relationships report that they are happier in their marriage than those who report that either they had to quit due to jealousy issues or outright divorced.

This is an example, perhaps, of how morality and marriage have not exactly kept pace with each other.  On one hand, we have a human population widening their sexual horizons while keeping a healthy family together, and on the other, people who believe that you still get married in order to increase the human population, maybe get some pleasure out of it, but that’s it.  We can see how a good chunk of the divorce rate in Western society, then, is due more to sexual repression than the loss of love between partners.  It really comes down to communcation–if monogamy suits your marriage, then there is nothing wrong with this so long as it suits both partners;  when it doesn’t, maintaining monogamy at all costs because it’s the “moral” thing to do may cost you that marriage.

In essence, perhaps the concept of marriage as we know it now does not need to change, or the concept of the family–we have to open our moral standards up to allow more for innate human instinct that will keep the home fires burning.  So long as the children of any coupling are cared for by both parents, provided for by both parents, the nature of the relationship really doesn’t matter.  Ideally, having an equal influence of both mother and father is shown to provide a more healthy mentality in children.  Romantically, we all want to have that “soul mate” that will go through life together with us, but if we can’t write the terms for our relationships that allow for more openness (with consent of both parties) sexually, then eventually things will go sour and the marriage will end.  Moral conservatism means that we are under pressure to conform to a single model of marriage, which may be causing more harm than good.

Something that I’ve told every couple, married or not, that is of the utmost importance is free communication.  A few ideas:

1. Live together before getting engaged.  A trial period before entering into the marriage contract will certainly give both parties a good idea if they can live together or not.  Here is where those moral instincts will come into play, as well as those annoying habits that may make the situation unliveable;
2. Are you the marriage type?  There should be zero–i mean, ZERO–necessity in modern society to get married in the first place.  I know people who are perfectly content to remain in the casual relationship sphere.  Giving into the ol’ family pressure to “settle down and marry the girl” might seem okay at first, but if you’re not into it, and you’re content with companionship and casual relationships, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with this.
3. Know thyself and thy partner, sexually as well as otherwise.  If you know at your core that you don’t want to stick to one partner for the rest of your life, say so.  If your partner decides the relationship isn’t for her, marriage won’t change those feelings, and you save yourselves an incredible amount of pain in the process.  This also applies during the marriage, because people do change, and when the humdrum feels like it’s setting in, it may not be time to get divorced–it may simply be time to try new things and recharge the marriage batteries.

I’m sure there are other tips–by way of hundreds of books on the subject of what keeps a marriage working.  But I also feel that by adhering to antiquated marriage laws and the morals that surround it, we may be splitting up more families than we save, and causing a lot more heartache and hurt children along the way.

sometimes i need to be reminded of why i vote….

I had an idle thought today.  Would it not be kinda neat to set up a photo opportunity with Michael Ignatieff and Paris Hilton?  Or Britney Spears?  Or the ever-twisting Brad/Angela/Jennifer combination?

Seems ridiculous?  So is the barrage of attack adverts against Ignatieff by the Conservatives.  I had only just commented to my wife on the fact that I can’t turn on the television without seeing the commercials, when my ever-punctual postwoman delivered a nicely printed black and white pamphlet reiterating the same issues, and directing me to a website, michaelignatieff.me, which…..well, reiterated the same issues.

Ignatieff.  Just Visiting.

Let me start off by saying that I’m not a screaming Ignatieff fan.  From an armchair warrior perspective, he can speak much more eloquently than his predecessor, Stephane Dion, has more personality, and a few ideas.  But I haven’t even been able to get to his ideas (yes, I know they’re probably on the federal Liberal’s web site) because of the blinding flash of all these attack ads.

From these ads, we know that he’s been quoted as looking to raise taxes in a few fields.  He was out of the country for 34 years and apparently showed up just in time to become the leader of the Liberal Party.  (I have a vision of Mr. Ignatieff running into the leadership convention, hair a mess, sweaty from running, going “Have they elected a leader yet?”) 

On the back of the pamphlet, it’s further made clear that the Conservatives are the ones fixing the country while Ignatieff wants to ruin it.

Perhaps I enjoy being offended, but I decided to take the pamphlet’s offer to visit michaelignatieff.me.  An elaborate website exists, the first page of which we see a mock-up magazine cover with various quotes, pictures and faux-cover stories like “Visitor’s Guide:  What To Do When Your Visit May Be Brief”.  And, oh my goodness!  You have the ability to watch the same ads that you’ve seen on television, you can actually read the aforementioned faux-cover stores in magazine-like layouts.  But ,Conservative fans, there’s more!  For fun, you can create your own custom anti-Ignatieff magazine cover, and share it with your friends, or even on Facebook!  You can “give the gift of Ignatieff” by sending the site to friends!  And, of course, true to the nature of an online tabloid, I can also subscribe and get all the dirt that’s fit to print about Ignatieff.

Not that I’d want the Conservatives to have my e-mail address.  Could get messy.

I see a lot of this in the Conservative propaganda, and I paraphrase:  Ignatieff’s policies are going to cost a fortune, raise taxes and drive Canada into the ground.  Ignatieff hates Canada.  How dare he even consider raising taxes in the middle of a recession?  I have one burning question, however:  How much did it cost to film the attack ads and make sure they’re given maximum commercial airtime on Canadian TV?  How much did it cost to print 30-odd-million copies of the pamphlet and have Canada Post deliver them?  And….how much did it cost for someone to design such an elaborate web site, and how much does it cost now to host it?

It doesn’t take someone with a doctorate in political science to realize that some of the Canada-bashing quotes we’re being assaulted with are probably taken out of context.  Not that I’m stirring up conspiracy theories, but I have a difficult time trusting a web site that provides short video snippets and short quotes from various articles.  You can bet I’ll be doing further reading on this stuff to try and wring some substance out of it–right now, I’m posting from the opinion of what an average Canadian is seeing.  My general theory is that Ignatieff, while off actually doing good things in other countries, was simply pissed off about the state of affairs in Canada, and maybe, just possibly, thought that it was time to come back and do something about it.

I’ve certainly made disparaging comments about Canada.  Like any democratic country, it has some serious flaws.  This doesn’t mean I hate Canada–like any relationship, you’re going to have some serious disagreements.  And, like any politician, most of his policies leave enough ambiguity to “opt-out” later when necessary.

Beyond Ignatieff’s real agenda, beyond his policies, beyond anything else the Conservatives want to throw at him….there’s something that frightens me a lot more.  The wording of a lot of this propaganda–like the fact that Ignatieff’s grandfather was “a minister under Russia’s last czar” (he has ties to a non-democratic government), that he lives “just a stone’s throw away from his closest advisors ‘The Rosedale Gang’” (that he’s something akin to a Mafia-style politician), that he’d only come back if “the back room boys ran his campaign” (same), and a whole page devoted to comparing Ignatieff to Stephane Dion, who is well known in Canada for being almost a non-entity….you get the picture.  This style of persuasion has been used for many years by many democratic governments:  He hates your country.  Look at him, he’s an elitist. He’s a communist.  He goes against every decent, god-mom-apple pie, patriotic bit you possibly stand for.

Enter smiling Stephen Harper, a guy who, when he does allow his cabinet members to speak, adopts a “speak first, apologize later” policy, believes that fixing the economy means reverting to billions of dollars in deficit spending.  Think of this one point–either Ignatieff can raise taxes now, or whoever is PM after the final tally of the recession is delivered will have to.   But it’s a pot-kettle-black thing here.  I’m Canadian.  I’ve been given enough of an education to figure out facts for myself.

I don’t like my time being wasted by attack ads which are obviously being paid for out of my tax dollars.  It’s worthless.  All I know is that if that Harper has in any way tainted my opinion of Ignatieff, he’s certainly tainted my opinion of him in the process.

Remind me why I vote again?

An epic sale FAIL: Summitt Energy Canada came a-callin…..’

I decided that rather than try to paraphrase my experience with a door-to-door salesman from Summitt Energy Canada, I’d simply repost the e-mail I’ve sent to them.  And I plan on linking to this through my Twitter account and through Facebook, so hopefully more people can slam the door in Summitt Energy’s face when they come calling.

Here’s the text of the letter:

——————————————

To whom it may concern:

I am writing to relate a recent experience with a door-to-door sales agent for your company who may have possibly created the worst experience I have ever had with any representative for any company.  Fortunately I have the name and representative number of this employee.

On June 23, 2009, a Mr. Shaun Nichols, whose representative number is JT 1003, came to my door and identified himself as being from Summit Energy.  He asked if I was on Summit’s price protection plan, and advised me that it was something that should have been done shortly after I moved in.  He asked to see one of my recent utility bills, which I did not have to hand but knew full well that the name Summit Energy was nowhere on these bills.  He again implied that Summit Energy’s protection plan was a matter of course and that if it hadn’t been put in place before, that it was a mistake and we could get underway immediately. 

He asked me if I knew where energy prices were going in the next 5 years, and, given the fact that I do own a car and keep tabs in the news on oil and other energy prices, said “yes”.  He then showed me a graph that was intended to explain how Summit’s price protection worked.  It was implied at this time that my energy prices per unit would be fixed at the current rate for some time.

Upon advising him that I did not have either my gas or hydro bill immediately available to him, he told me that I could sign the registration form, and that in a few weeks he would call back to fill in the account numbers from my energy bills.  I advised Mr. Nichols that I do not sign anything without researching things first, at which point he proceeded to get very argumentative, assuring me that nothing would come of it if I just signed now.  I again told Mr. Nichols that I do not put my signature on anything that quickly, and he decided to ask me questions like “You are aware that energy costs are going up?”  and “So, you researched London Hydro before signing on with them?” in an almost insulting tone of voice.  In fact, I did research London Hydro even though they’re the only game in town, so to speak, and actually learned I’d be helping pay off the former Ontario Hydro’s debt.  Good to know.  I told Mr. Nichols this, and his answer was “Do you like paying those costs?”

In the end, he handed me the registration form, filled out except for my signature and account numbers, some information, and told me he would return for the registration form later.

Fortunately, he didn’t come back.

Being conversant in legal language, reasonably intelligent and cautious, I first decided to look at the fine print at the bottom of the registration form.  This is what I learned:

1. “This agreement is with Summit Energy and is not with my local electricity or natural gas distributor.”  Mr. Nichols implied that Summit Energy walked hand in hand with London Hydro to provide these “amazing” prices and that signing up is simply a matter of course.  In fact, your company is a licensed electricity and natural gas retailer, which means that the only hand London Hydro would have in this is distributing the product and handing me a bill.

2. “Unless agreed to in writing by Summit, no amendments, either written or verbal, to this Registration Form or Customer Agreement with Terms and Conditions will be accepted.”  So, quite literally, if I had signed, I would have no rights except the legally supplied one to cancel within 10 days.  The month that Mr. Nichols had given me is over that 10 days, by which time I would be legally bound to switch over to you.

3. “I authorize my utility to provide Summit Energy my account number, which we may include in the space above.”  This would mean that if Mr. Nichols had called me back in one month, and I refused to give him the account numbers and said I did not want service from Summit, that your company has every right to contact Union Gas and London Hydro and get the information anyway.

As you can see, Mr. Nichols gravely misrepresented legal information in attempting to get me to sign.  Sign here, and I call back in a month to be told “Well, sir, you had 10 days to cancel, which you didn’t do, and you gave us the right to get your account information.  Welcome to Summit Energy.”

Further research revealed that my price would not be fixed at the current regulated rates, but at a fairly higher rate that I would presume is a median between now and 5 years from now.  I would not be saving any money initially, but possibly breaking even over a 5 year term, with your company reaping the benefits.  I am guessing that your company also reserves the right to adjust the fixed rate higher in certain circumstances, but I did not research Summit further than this.  The point being that Mr. Nichols did not advise that initial rates would be higher than the current regulated rates.

Mr. Nichols lied about the very nature of Summit Energy’s business, omitted key legal and pricing information, argued with me about the use of my own signature and outright mocked the fact that I research companies before entering into a legally binding contract, and attempted to lock me into said contract by doing an end run around Ontario’s legal requirements in such matters.  In fact, the only thing he did correctly, required by law, was to give me the “Important Information about Customer Choice from Ontario Energy Retailers” pamphlet, which was informative after the fact.

To be blunt:  I never, ever wish to see Mr. Nichols or any other representative of Summit Energy on my property again.  Should someone show up, I will be obtaining their name and rep number and contacting you after politely asking them to get off my property.  I am also considering forwarding a copy of this letter to the Ontario Energy Association, and I hope never to be contacted in any way, shape or form, by your company in the future.  I will be tearing up the registration form.

If Mr. Nichols does not represent the common sales practices of your company, then I hope he is suitably disciplined for his actions.

Thank you,
Jason Norwood

[Update: I did receive an apology from Summitt Energy, but it was so form-based that I really don't entertain much hope that the agent in question will ever hear about my complaint.]

Musicians. Public opinions? Compensation? FAIL.

Okay.  So I’m sitting here drinking my noontime coffee, browsing the mainstream news and debating on what to have for lunch.  I came across an article from the good ol’ AP that awakened the sleeping blogger in me.  To read that article, it’s here:  

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090610/radio_artist_090610/20090610?hub=Entertainment

In a nutshell:

Which top-selling artist purportedly had his new single cut from some U.S. radio stations playlists in retaliation for supporting royalties for musicians?

No one involved will name the recording artist but his no-play treatment by several radio stations is alleged in a complaint filed with the Federal Communications Commission and obtained by The Associated Press. It claims recording artists are being threatened and intimidated.

A large part of the “intimidation” in the music industry against artists having their own opinions about things goes to a simple (in the U.S.) First Amendment right.  Radio stations have the right NOT to play a single no matter how popular it is.  We all remember the Dixie Chicks, right?  They had an opinion about George W. Bush, and the next thing we know, country and western radio stations in the United States are banning all airplay of Dixie Chick’s music, presumably in an effort to injure their record sales.  How dare they have a negative opinion of the President.  So, the DJs are allowed to have an opinion and manipulate what the public hears if it doesn’t follow what they believe in.  But, it didn’t hurt the Chick’s popularity, did it?  Their manager was probably on the phone with comments like “You can’t buy this kind of publicity.”

In that light, it makes perfect sense that none of the parties involved in this particular case are willing to name the person or band who is being opinion-banned from radio this time.  Might get sued, you know.

In the filing, the musicFIRST Coalition says the top-selling artist — there are hints it could be U2 frontman Bono — recently released a new album and spoke during April in support of an effort to require radio stations to pay musicians royalties similar to those paid to songwriters.

Soon after, it said, “several stations within a major radio broadcast group notified the artist’s label that they would no longer play his single on the air.

Could it be Bono?  Who is it?  Who dares to claim equality for musicians and songwriters across the board in terms of royalties owed by radio stations? 

I find it interesting that, rather than publish facts to the contrary saying “We pay this much per year in publishing royalties, and it would cost us this much more”, they simply try to silence the artist period.  Hit him in his wallet, where it counts.  It is still so much easier to silence someone with an opinion than provide a fact-based counter on which we’ll be able to judge whether it’s right or wrong.

Let’s have a couple reality checks here.  First of all, someone who writes a song usually has a publishing company, or at least does it themselves.  If they have any waves lapping at the industry, they are signed to SOCAN (in Canada), or either ASCAP or BMI in the U.S.  These organizations exist to collect royalties on songs for songwriters.  If I want to do a cover version of a song, I apply to these organizations and pay whatever royalty is applied to the songwriter (not necessarily the original musician who performed the song) for the right to record the song.  Radio stations generally pay a blanket license fee to these organizations in order to compensate the artist.  This allows them to avoid having to account for every single song they play in a 24 hour period.  You played U2’s latest single 7 times today, and you played someone else’s track once.  Doesn’t matter, the blanket license shall cover all.

According to ASCAP’s website, in 2007 the statuatory mechanical royalty payable per composition is 9.1 cents.  That’s all, folks.  9.1 cents.  ASCAP says:

This statutory mechanical rate represents the songwriter/music publishing royalties payable for songs contained on all physical audio recordings which are made and distributed from January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2007 regardless of the date of the mechanical license or the date that the particular recording was initially released.

So, the math is simple.  Every time a $15 CD of yours gets sold, the record label gets to pay out $9.10 in royalties.  This gets paid to the songwriter and NOT the musician.  I could write one song for U2, and every time a CD of theirs gets sold, I’ll get 9.1 cents out of the deal.  U2, being astoundingly popular, will probably take home a lot more money off this deal than I will.  But, there’s more:

This royalty rate applies unless the music publisher and songwriter have agreed to a lesser rate in the mechanical license or controlled composition clause of the recording artist agreement (e.g., 75% statutory).

Here comes that little music industry devil:  the controlled composition clause.  With this tricky bastard in my contract, my record label can say “Okay.  You really want to record Joe Songwriter’s song?  We don’t like it.  It’s not a radio-friendly unit shifter.  So, according to the contract, you’ll take half a rate on that song.”  So, the poor songwriter who has a really good song for me will only collect half of 9.1 cents per unit sold, because the contract says if the label doesn’t like it, they get to pay discount prices for it.  Plus, if the songwriter signed his publishing rights to the record label, he walks away with whatever sum, and if that song does in fact become a radio hit, well, that’s it.  None of that revenue will ever see the songwriter’s pocket.

There’s the obvious two-sided coin here that I’ve talked about before.  A massively popular group like U2 can write, or pick any song they want.  Throw the U2 name on it, and it could be a guaranteed seller.  U2 is going to walk away with a good chunk of change.  I’m still getting 9.1 cents per CD sold.  This changes with a new artist, which is where you’re a lot more likely to see controlled composition clauses.  We know that a new artist is billed on his royalty statement for everything from that limo-lunch meeting with the A&R representative to the flowers she got backstage after a performance, to promotional costs….and in a lot of cases, an artist will hear something like “Congratulations!  Your album just sold a million copies!  You owe your label $500,000!”  What?  Well, after management, label and attorney take their cut off the artist’s take-in off the top….so there’s a lot less money left over, but we do have to remember that the CD manufacturing plant, the cover artist, all these people have to get paid….and then the artist.  By the time we get to him, he owes owes owes.  But, the songwriter may still get paid whatever percentage of statuatory rate is in his contract.  If it’s the artist who wrote the song…..well, might as well send that back to the label, because you still owe.

Now that we have this information under our belts, let us not forget that the record labels also indulge in “payola”, meaning that there could be a kickback for KRUD Radio if they’ll put song X on heavy rotation, and, well, we’ll pay you to keep song Y off your station as well.  This was huge in the 80’s–in fact, an organization set themselves up in Mafia style to make good money off of it.  It’s watered down to “We’ll give you free tickets to artist Y’s concert if you’ll play artist Z’s more radio friendly hit instead”  in most cases, but it’s still there.

Now, do I feel that musicians should be paid every time their song is played on the radio?  Well, for the debut-album “new kid on the block” artist, it might help to offset some of the debt he/she incurs with the label, but it will more than likely wind up a zero-sum game.  For a well known artist, it’ll simply mean more money in their pockets.  This means that it doesn’t really even the playing field for artists across the board.

I have to be fair to radio stations as well.  In the age where music is freely downloadable (unless you go through something like iTunes), information and public opinion on a record is widely available on the Internet and anyone can set up their own Internet radio station to broadcast goodness knows what, radio is struggling to stay alive.  Many have gone to automated DJs, at least during certain hours, because advertising dollars are getting pinched a little bit more, and a little bit more.  So, I can understand when they’re balking at doubling that blanket licensing fee so that the guy behind the guitar gets paid as well.  This goes against the idea that radio is really simply a promotional vehicle.  Record label sends radio station a free promotional CD of established and up-and-coming artists.  DJ plays it.  I hear it, and go “Wow!  What a phenomenal song….really touches my heart.  *sniffle*”  So, I go out and spend $15 on the CD.  Bingo.  In an ideal world, Radio Station did it’s job, Artist gets paid, and Songwriter gets paid the stat rate plus whatever he gets out of the blanket licensing fee.  The radio station generally makes its money off of commercial advertising dollars, so adding another fee really would damage a media format that is already struggling to survive in a high-tech ocean.

What I strongly disagree with, though, is that radio stations feel that in order to combat this menace, they feel the need to silence an artist entirely, or in another case:

Before an interview, an artist was pressured by a Texas radio station to state on the air that the Performance Rights Act would cripple radio stations.

So, either we’re not allowed to have opinions, or we’ll be told what opinions to air in public.  It’s much the same in Hollywood, where an actor who voices his or her opinion about something against the party line gets blacklisted.  Done.  You’ll never work in this town again.  These people, in Hollywood or the music industry at large, will say out of one side of their mouths “We do this because we love music”, and then use blatant censorship of the music for an artist who, outside of music, voices an opinion. 

Next up, it’s Famous Artist #2 with no opinion and another song about fucking for all you teenagers out there in Radioland.

Do I believe musicians should be compensated for their work?  Yes.  Songwriters too.  However, I’m starting to get very, very tired of the U2’s and the Metallicas of the world complaining that their bank accounts just aren’t fat enough.  What they are complaining about does nothing for newer artists being painfully screwed by their record labels, songwriters literally selling their souls for a song (no pun intended?) in a lot of cases, and may conceivably put non-corporately owned radio stations out of business.  If you want to fight it, though, Radio Stations, then open a conversation and leave our music out of it.  In some ways, I may be playing devil’s advocate, but at least I can hope I’m playing fair.

Bailout, bailout, bailout…..where’s ours?

Alright, alright.  Before you start laughing at the title of this, let me start by saying:  “Economic credit bailout recession sub-prime mortgage bank crisis”.  Did this sentence make sense to you?  Did you have to read it a few times over to get all the words?  Well, that’s how this whole economic downturn looks to me every time I crack a newspaper or turn on the television.  It’s an incredible blur of information—according to our politicians and the media, we went from “Everything’s doing just fine” to “We’re screwed” in a very short amount of time.  Even as the economy of the United States of America tanks, our own leaders at home were saying that we wouldn’t feel it as bad, if at all.

            Doesn’t feel like it.  We’re even in the middle of a political crisis stemming from the economic crisis.  Sounds like we’re screwed?  I have a bad feeling about it, but I still can’t gleam enough solid evidence out of the ambiguous statements on both sides of the border to conclusively answer that.

            Once we dragged out of our leaders just how serious the situation is, we started talking about a financial bailout.  In the US, this amounts to $700 billion dollars—so far.  In Canada, we’ll have to wait until January 27^th to find out what the Conservative government wants to do about the problems, and even then, if the newly formed coalition government votes it down, we’ll still have to wait to find out what their plan is.  (I don’t trust a coalition to be able to multitask efficiently—right now their limited resources are all aimed at bringing down Stephen Harper’s government).

            Stateside, the abridged version of the story is that Wall Street loaned out too much money to people who probably had no hope of paying it back, so the United States government was going ot spend a truckload of money shoring up financial institutions to make sure they didn’t collapse.  This is fascinating, especially seeing as a city in Nevada had set up a tent city for people who were losing their homes in record numbers.  This scared other financial institutions who immediately stopped giving out credit to both the average consumer and each other (banks lend each other staggering amounts every year).

            In a nut shell:  The average person doesn’t make enough money to really afford much more than bills, but nobody’s offering any credit except to those with incomes who don’t need credit, so the vast majority of us aren’t buying…..well, anything.  Stores worldwide are telling us how the crowds are NOT coming out in droves during the holiday season, Circuit City has filed for Chapter 11 and it’s Canadian equivalent.

            Looks very bad, right?  So where’s OUR bailout?

            The forthcoming Obama government has a solution for the average person with a huge mortgage in the States—lower their annual interest one percentage point.  So the solution for all the families teetering on the edge, the ones thinking that bankruptcy might just be a good idea, is to say “We’re going to cut you a little slack.”  Trouble is, the payments themselves won’t change, it’ll just help them pay off their overblown mortgage faster.  Doesn’t help Joe Blow right this very moment when the bills are piling up.

            Don’t get me wrong.  I can’t completely fault the financial institutions for this.  We live in a consumerist, must-have society.  Joe didn’t wake up one morning with a mortgage, he signed up for it, just like he walked into a Future Shop and landed that 46” inch super-high-definition TV by buying into the whole “don’t pay for a year” idea.  They offered credit like mad to us, and we snapped it up because we had to have that house, that TV, that car, whatever.  Trouble is, if the banks can screw up and get written a cheque by the government, why can’t the government take a couple grand and write Joe a cheque?  “Here, Joe, it’s okay, we all created this situation.  Rather than go bankrupt, here’s a government-guaranteed consolidation loan.  You still have to pay everything, but we’re going to make things easier.”  So now, Joe isn’t staring at a pile of bills.  We assume (and I’m making a stretch here) that Joe has learned his lesson and isn’t going to run out and rack up more credit.  He saves a couple paycheques and goes out and buys that TV outright.  At least Joe is buying something.  And isn’t that the starting point of a consumer-based economy—the ability of the average consumer to buy stuff?  If we’re not buying stuff, what good is $700 billion if the financial institutions are still unwilling to lend Joe a helping hand?

            There’s a lot of “help the people out” talk bantered around in the news these days, but most of the solutions are carefully suggested so as not to upset the financial institutions, who are getting money from the government but still want Joe to make his payments on time, exactly as before.  I like the idea of the government lending their good name to consolidation loans for the average consumer.  The rules are simple: 

·         You cannot claim bankruptcy on it.  If your consolidation loan goes into default, the government can take your tax refunds or whatever other measures the government normally uses to collect government debts to get the money back.  (A good incentive not to screw up on it.)

·         All of your debts have to be included in the loan, even ones that are in good standing.

·         The loan legally forces all creditors to list in your credit rating as paid in full but does not erase the actual credit history like a bankruptcy would.

·         You are not allowed to seek any credit for a predetermined period of time except for a single credit card with a maximum limit of $500.  (Let’s face it, you have to have one to do some things like rent a car).

Fine, if you fail to make those payments, well, lie in the bed you made.  You were given a chance.  It would depend on two things—the recognition that the average Canadian and American family is suffering, the fact that without direct help, individuals will still claim bankruptcy in record numbers, which helps no one, and the faith that the majority of people given this option will actually learn their lesson and start buying stuff with money they have instead of money they don’t.

            Common sense?

            I’m glad I could give you a good laugh.