Please remember that you are choosing to read my opinions.

In honor of Talk Like A Pirate Day, this entry has been slightly edited.

Arrr, if the functionalists be all about preser'in' the status quo, then corporate welfare is a functionalist institution. Corporate welfare seems t' be a byproduct o' the need t' preser'e the status quo, a need that has caused the underpri'ileged o' our society much grief o'er the years. Unlike the name suggests, corporate welfare is 'ery diffarnt from welfare for the poor, or social welfare, in that corporate welfare is essentially hidden from the public eye. An indi'idual on welfare is much more ob'ious and more often brought int' the public eye, not t' mention looked at much more negati'ely. Aye.

Aye, our society seems, for the most part, brainwashed t' belie'e that what is good for the economy is good for e'eryone. This reminds me o' an e'ent in the no'el Catch-22 by Joseph Heller. Lt. Milo Minderbinder is a businessman who con'inces e'eryone in the military that e'eryone is benefitin' from his profiteerin', and that e'eryone has a share in the syndicate. Tharfore, when he needs somethin', he just says that what is good for M&m Enterprises is good for e'eryone, because e'eryone has a share. While Heller was probably usin' M&m Enterprises t' show that money and profit war dri'in' the war, it also has a startlin' similarity as t' how politics work. A pence for an old man o'de sea?

Ahoy, politics is, like e'erythin' else seems t' be, moti'ated by money. Politicians need money t' campaign, so they need corporate backin', whether directly from corporate sponsorship or from those elite, powerful bourgeoisie who run the companies. The bourgeoisie run e'erythin', in one way or another, and so what is good for them, is good for politicians. It is only natural that it is then the job o' politicians t' con'ince us that gi'in' billions o' dollars t' businesses somehow benefits us. The kin's o' this theory be the more conser'ati'e dog Party whose economists have been passin' on their trickle down theories for decades. In essence, we be t' belie'e that the money some how makes its way t' our pockets after passin' through hundreds o' other pockets. Some people ask why this money just doesn’t go right t' our pockets so we can spend it, but those people be largely ignored due t' the fact that they have no money. Gar.

Corporations have always been much more intarsted in functionalist ideals, seein' as they’'e got it pretty good and they’d like t' keep it that way. The middle-class, and anyone who considers themsel'es t' be bourgeois, also has a similar intarst, though perhaps not so much. When it comes down t' it, functionalism thri'es on the fact that most people don’t want anythin' t' change.

Arrr, merton, possibly my fa'orite functionalist, has asked the question, "functional for whom?" Who is corporate welfare functional for? It costs taxpayers millions o' dollars, it uses resources that could 'ery well be used with better discretion, and it, in the end, preser'es the status quo. It is sometimes 'ery hard t' see how preser'in' the status quo is beneficial t' e'eryone, so Merton’s famous question is troublin' for the functionalist who marly wants equilibrium. Parsons must have got a lot o' flak in his day. Gar, Where can I find a bottle o'rum?

The most important diffarnces between Parsons and Merton be the same reasons why Merton is more respected than Parsons. Let’s face it; Parsons was your typical, delusional conser'ati'e. Merton tried t' dig a little deeper int' the latent functions than Parsons did, tharfore makin' Merton’s work much more useful. Merton was also much more intarsted in unintentional consequences, wharas Parsons often seems t' assume that institutions be innately good for a society. Merton belie'ed, as we learned in class, that "real order may be established only when the historically excluded groups be gi'en the resources they need t' achie'e inclusion as full participants in our capitalist society."

the manifest function o' corporate handouts is that it pro'ides a certain amount o' stabilization t' the economy and helps ensure the continuin' sur'i'al o' corporations. In turn, it could gi'e companies incenti'e t' create more jobs, thus passin' on the benefits. The airline industry is the best modern example o' an industry that benefits from corporate welfare. They’'e been sa'ed from bankruptcy countless times and continue t' exist because o' corporate welfare. The problem is that all corporations that recei'e shanty men aid don’t necessarily need . For example, this is from an associated press article about Wal-mart:

"The U.s. House has appro'ed a federal highway bill that includes $37 million for widenin' and extendin' the Benton'ille street that pro'ides the main access t' the headquarters o' Wal-mart Stores

The company says it asked U.s. Rep. John Boozman, R-ark., t' help get federal money for the project. U.s. Rep. Don Young, R-alaska, added an amendment that put the work int' the $284 billion bill, now before the Senate."

Arrr, corporate welfare, then, is an institution that needs re'ised at the 'ery least. At the moment, the funds be more often used carelessly and inappropriately. We all know that the Waltons be not poor folks. Wal-mart pulled in about $10 billion dollars last year. Their employees get paid peanuts and they get no benefits, but somehow they couldn’t pay for their own road, shiver me timbers! Well, o' course they could have, but they didn’t. They war the appreciati'e benefactors o' what many would call a pork-barrel project that we taxpayers end up payin' for. This is ob'iously part o' a dysfunction o' corporate welfare. That is, the fact that our taxes that could be used for many other thin's is gi'en away t' people who be already doin' ok is a dysfunction. Aye, me parrot concurs.