Senility from the Pulpit

Up to his usual dribble, on yesterday's boadcast of the 700 Club, Pat Robertson suggested that the US have Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez taken out. Well, hating is the man's business, so what else can be expected. After all, he prays for the deaths of US Supreme Court Justices.

The strangest part of it all, however, is Robertson's statement alluding to how, if something isn't done, Venezuela will become a "“launching pad for communist influence and Muslim extremism." Last I checked, however, jihad and the proletariat make for bad bunk-buddies.

They might be both shamelessly founded on some twisted form of slave morality, and tend to gravitate toward ideas of justice and democracy that violently oppose American values, but supposing the they're common foe makes them allies is the kind of depraved paranoia that comes from too many years with a finger in vats of sacramental wine.

Aside from communism being explicitly secular (and dead for that matter), it doesn't have the smoothest of histories with Islam. Through countless pinko campaigns to wipe all religion off the face of its realms, Islam has provided some of the most stubborn resistance--kind of like how it does anytime anyone crosses it.

Robertson seems to fancy subversive assasination as an option because of the economies it has over overt warfare. “We don’t need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator,” he blabbered Monday Night. “It’s a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with.”

Someone needs to throw the goodbook his way, though, and remind him of the tab run up by the Russkies last time they went binging in Afghanistan.

Political punditry is one thing, and religious preaching is another, but what Robertson seems to be propounding is some evil cocktail of the Inquisition and Holy Crusades with a pint of Mogen David as a chaser. In lumping together Islamic fundamentalist with communist revolutionaries, Robertson has come off as sounding as silly as a war Vet's brainwashed, fiive year old tot.

Alas, allow the old fool whatever ramblings afford him his jollies. At 75 years of age, it seems like senility is taking its slow, nasty grip of his ticker, and that the hate monger will soon dig himself into disrepute.

The Moral High-Ground? What!?!

Two years ago, Pat Robertson of Christian Broadcasting Network put out a prayer call for a vacancy on the Supreme Court to arise so that some change might be affected in the court’s constitution. Calling the effort Operation Supreme Court Freedom, Robertson displayed his highly peculiar interpretation on what justice is. As Robertson states:

Two years ago, I felt an urgent need for people to unite and pray for change in the Supreme Court. So, in July of 2003, The 700 Club launched Operation Supreme Court Freedom, a nationwide 21-day prayer campaign. During that time, we asked our partners and viewers to pray for God to intervene and restore righteousness and justice in our land.

It’s curious about just how Christian Robertson and his ilk might be, however. A key point of distinction between Christ and his Judaic predecessors is that, where the latter see things in terms of an eye for an eye, the J-to-the-C taught that you should turn the other cheek. That Robertson’s God would answer those prayers through the biological assassination of a liberal Supreme Court Justice raises questions about just exactly which ‘God’ Robertson and his minions are paying homage to.

But now the scales seem poised to tip in the other direction. With the likelihood of multiple vacancies on the court, you and I are witnessing the direct result of prayer and intercession.

So not only is Christian-legitimacy of this God that Robertsonites worship dubious, but what next it (and they) have in store is outright daunting. If “Tens of thousands of people responded to this massive prayer offensive and cried out to the Lord to change the court,” the first time around, I can only imagine the response that might ensue now that these methods have been tried, tested, and true.

And it’s curious to see how this so-called ‘God’ of theirs is going to respond. Robertsonites may have more in their sights than just politically relevant figureheads. More specifically, the way this second-wave of the prayer-drive is poised, they might be stepping it up a notch to full-scale war.

But there's a rough road ahead! Character assassins on the left are preparing a war room — they are determined to destroy reputations and delay hearings.

Paranoid delusions like this are the stuff that Gestapo-like agencies are made from, and it’s terrifying to wonder just who or what might be on the pray-for-a-hit-list.

It’s not such a far cry, really. Among other things, Robertson and his 700-Club are crying out that their followers:

→ Pray that the justices of the Supreme Court would rule according to the Constitution as written and not man's opinions.
→ Pray that additional vacancies occur within the Supreme Court.
→ Pray that any plan of the enemy for the Senate confirmation hearing would be thwarted. Take authority over the schemes of Satan concerning the Supreme Court.
→ Pray for the physical protection of Supreme Court justices, the current nominee, the Senate Judiciary Committee members, and all those involved in the confirmation hearings.
→ Pray that justices who believe in a loose interpretation of the United States Constitution be replaced by those who are strict constructionists.

Essentially, then, the 700-Club wants to see more deaths and myopic unanimity. These are interesting conceptualizations of democracy that Robertson and his kind have, and I wonder why if so much consensus obtained we would even need something like a free-vote anyway.

It’s a strange and twisted mind that equate opinionated opposition with the likes of Satan, democracy with dogmatic discipline, and justice with death. But alas, this is Bush country now, and none of this seems to be too far off the mark from many of the current administration’s policies.

Apparently American

For all Dov Charney's allegedly dubious going-ons at American Apparel®, there’s nary a closed door to even hide them behind as the company flaunts its expectations.

The heat that Dov Charney, American Apparel® CEO, has been feeling from his libertine lifestyle, as of late, is stemming not so much from his habitual hedonism, but two sexual harassment lawsuits that have been filed between three former employees. That both suits were filed after said employees were terminated, however, isn’t the only reason to regard the matter with a healthy skepticism. For all his eccentricities, Charney is also renowned for being perfectly candid about his management style, making the claims that his behaviour compromises the liberties of employees reasonably dubious.

Living in the post-capitalist/consumer society that we do, it’s quite tempting to take for granted just how much any truly efficient marketplace functions on the premise of perfect liberty. After all, the onslaught of freedoms that we enjoy today came not so much from benevolent leaders or disenfranchised masses standing up for what is wholesome and righteous, but from the realisation that the market is better equipped than any other to decide just what’s really in demand and what’s not.

With the rise of capitalism, the system of a few hereditary has-beens controlling the economy was displaced for a meritocracy where those most suited to organise the distribution of labour and property were allowed to demonstrate their ability. If people were going to effectively partake in any marketplace, however, they required the liberty to pursue whatever goods and services actually appealed to them, rather than having some megalomaniacal decide for them. The result’s been growth and wealth unseen in any other time.

To dictate the way that someone else (anyone else) does business, though, is to dictate how others consume, and before you know it, we’re standing in hour long lines for those coveted commodities--such as the shit-tickets we’ll so desperately need for clean up after a clandestine visit to a secluded washroom to release whatever repressed urges we’ve been denied relieving otherwise.

After all, requiring perfect liberty as it does, the market’s subject to the very same principles as any other free environment: any practice is admissible so long as it doesn’t infringe on the behaviour of any other. In economic terms, then, any strategy is admissible so long as it doesn’t run counter to an efficient distribution of goods and service.

It simply cannot be forgotten that part and parcel of freedom is letting others choose for themselves how to lead their lives--so long as it doesn’t in anyway inhibit us from doing the same, of course. We might not agree with those choices, and even regard them as unforgivable mistakes, but permitting them is a small price to pay--even if only for the freedom to have and express such an opinion.

Living free means also to live and let live.

American Apparel® has become the economic powerhouse that it is because it’s efficient at supplying its product. Appealing mostly to a younger, hipper market demographic, it’s libertine approach to marketing and customer service works not because it seduces that demographic, but because it reflects it. If fingers are to be pointed, then, they’re better aimed there, at the demand, and not the supply. Again, it’s safer for all parties to let live.

As for the plaintiffs’ freedom to decide on their own labour and lifestyle preferences, they might benefit from the market’s cues. As Ilse Metchek, the executive director of the California Fashion Association, was recently cited as pointing out in New York Times article, the fashion industry is one wrought with sexual obsession. Offering consumers ways by which to look good, it only makes sense for it to rely on sex to sell.

As unsettling a standard as we might find it for any industry to be operating on, it’s not only on that makes perfect economic and logical sense, but one that Charney’s been up-front and honest about from the get-go.

If not made explicitly clear by American Apparel® advertising campaigns, then it’s at least apparent in the company’s approach interior decor. Adorning the flatly white walls of its stores, countless snapshots display scantily clad and suggestively positioned American Apparel® models (mostly employees). Whatever that’s worth, then, in the least it adds up to integrity.

Serving drinks in bar, chances are that any server will be pawed regularly, if not frequently, and if the tips don’t aren’t adequate compensation, they’re free to seek employment elsewhere. Again, complete liberty allows the market to adjust appropriately.

If the server chooses not to exit the industry entirely, however, they’ll have to settle for the pocket-change scrapings of a local diner. But the market knows its own, and job being what it is, an enormous multitude of candidates are capable of doing it (re: it’s straightforward, easy work), so no one person’s time is worth all that much.

The fashion retail world is hardly different. A salesperson need only be presentable and friendly (something anyone’s capable of on a better day), and if they’re more efficient than most, a commission on sales (comparable to tips) will be waiting with their paycheque.
This is something that Charney seems to understand, but what else he understands is his target market demand. Catering to young and vibrant consumers as he does, Charney’s supplying not just another generic commodity, but a service.

American Apparel® sales representative need not only fold merchandise and ring-up purchases, but portray an image and a lifestyle, and this is something that Charney’s been quite willing to pay for. Compared to their Gap® counterparts who eke-out a measly minimum-wage--mimicking the sweat-shop workers whose product they peddle--American Apparel® employees are handsomely compensated for their dynamism. As a recent article in the Miami Herald pointed out, American Apparel® sales-reps in the Miami area earn $13/hr.

For whatever all the hearsay might amount to, even the infamously eccentric Dov Charney is entitled to his day in court. That all three suits were filed after said employees were terminated, however, is cause for healthy skepticism. Charney’s record for being candid, moreover, only lends to his credibility in dismissing the charges.

Drastic charges, after all, are their own brand of sensationalism, and sensationalism is the great seductress of our time. It’s too easy to be whirred up into a lynch-mob mentality whenever someone’s personal lifestyle is unfathomable to us, or just outright offensive. But we need only fear sticks and stones, and shutting up someone in a windmill before setting it ablaze doesn’t make them a monster.