I was paying bills the other day while listening to live streaming from NPR public radio on my laptop. I was simultaneously reading news on both Wall Street Journal and New York Times.
Politico likes to pigeon voters into categories; and for good reasons (to them). It's easier to tabular and measure. It's easier to show results. And it's easier to grab news headlines and soundbites. But I don't think alot of people are that easily pigeon-holed. Take me, for example. While I'm liberal leaning on most social issues, I don't subscribe to alot of issues that AARP or NAACP champions. And while I'm fiscally conservative, I believe government has a strong role to play, particularly in proper regulations and their enforcement, and in providing basic infrastructure and framework for the society to function. So, I don't agree with the one-size-fits-all notion from GOP that government should shrink to a barebone minimal and that it should get out of our life. At the same time, GOP wants big government in military and defense. What gives, one would ask? To me, that kind of clear-cut, black-and-white GOP argument only befits a 7-year-old. In real life, things are always much, much more complicated than a one-line soundbite. And I strongly believe in kicking all lobbyists out of Washington, which I have no doubts none of the politicians would support the move (as their finance depends so heavily on lobbying groups).
Why am I saying all these, you'd ask? I read news from different sources because I want different perspectives, in order to make informed decisions and to form my opinion. I hardly read any of the blogs on the web, because I don't need yet more opinions from some talking heads like Huffington Post. What I need is the basic facts, and I make my own judgment, thank you very much. And then, I've suddenly come to realize that, without all the traditional news source, there is no more source for hard news. I realize that I'd probably be caught off guard, should any of these news organization cease to exist, the possibility of which can be quite real. Granted that Wall Street Journal is relatively safe under the Murdoch wing. Other news organizations like New York Times and Reuters have been struggling financially for quite some time, and it's likely to remain the same or even worsen in the years to come, given freeloaders like Google News who use the contents from someone else for free. Don't get me wrong, I read Google News quite often too, but I don't think it's fair to just use someone else's contents which can be so expensive to put together.
And so, as I was paying my bills, I realize that I've been a freeloader as well. Talking about casting the first stone on Google News. :P To talk the talk and walk the walk, I put in the subscription for Wall Street Journal and New York Times right there and then. WBUR is running fund-raising as well, so I call in to make a donation in the amount of the subscriptions to the other newspapers. And suddenly, I feel better about myself. :)
For everything in life, it comes with a price. The price of hard news, which I value so much, is high. I don't think I can afford not to have hard news on any given day. I should do my part.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Speaking of price to pay, my thoughts circle back to the low inflation that we've come to enjoy for so long (what, more than a decade now?). In fact, I don't think prices in supermarket have really gone up much at all for the past ten years. Sure, I enjoy the low, steady prices when I go grocery-shopping. Who won't be?
The other day, I bought a pack of 3 frozen white fish fillet from a Chinese supermarket for less than 5 bucks. It's awesome, because it's so cheap and it's pretty tasty too. And then, I read the article on the appalling conditions on some catfish farm in countries like Vietnam where the fish are kept in rolling on filthy waters and can still thrive, given the excessive amount of steroids inserted in their bodies. They grow fast and big, without need of much attention. While I think the article might have focused excessively on the negative side of things, it has answered some of the nagging questions at the back of my mind for a very long time. How can prices be so cheap on food, year on year, for so long? Granted that technology has improved alot, raw materials don't. It just doesn't sit right to me, that we can sit at the table, and have everything we want. Somehow, something's gotta give. That "something," is the steroid and mercury level in these fish. They are cheap, tasty, but they can do harm to your body too. I've since decided that I'm not buying those fish fillets anymore.
The same goes with the "everyday low price" at Walmart. I was watching the 2005 documentary Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price the other day. I find myself agreeing with the observations of my own, of how small communities who can't compete on the low prices alone get crushed by Wal-mart, and how important it is to buy local and to support local community and economy.
While I emphasize deeply with those who need to save a penny, I don't normally buy at the cheapest source I can find. (I've only been to a Wal-mart a few times in my life.) For small communities, in particular, it's a vicious cycle to have Wal-mart moves in, crushes all local stores, then everyone in town would have no choice but to seek employment with Wal-mart who doesn't care about living wage or decent benefits to its employees. These folks would then become beholden even more by the low prices that Wal-mart feeds them. For as long as I can afford, I don't want to be in that situation, when I would become beholden on a behemoth like that.
The price of low-price is simply too high to me.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment