GWB will be known as the president who ignored global warming. As he said and says often, "we don't know enough about it, and we need to continue to study it until we get all the facts."
I love that because he never studied any facts on Iraq, or used some other lame excuse to avoid a problem that is much more threatening than terrorism.
I always love the arguemnts that people throw at me when I bring up global warming. There are two groups of people you can believe when it comes to global warming. 1.) Scientist, who study the issue, and report their conclusions. 2.) Business leaders, who have an interest in you not believing global warming. Therefore, they deny its existence or squirm out of the questions if they do not want to lie on camera. I put GWB in the latter camp.
This article is great. Make sure you read the last sentence.
Friday, March 24, 2006
Thursday, March 23, 2006
War Prophets
I do not need to say much about this one, but I probably will anyway. Plenty of people have offered their opinions about GWB's uncle making a pretty penny during the war.
Our presence in Iraq makes a lot of sense when you consider that those closely connected to the people who make the decisions in the government have been profiting handsomely since the U.S. military invaded Iraq.
That is why there was such a rush to invade.
That is why there is no real military strategy for victory.
That is why there are so many contractors in Iraq.
That is why future presidents will decide when we leave. (That nest egg gets bigger every day.)
That is why there are so many allegations of corruption in government.
War is worth a lot of money to a very select few.
The people responsible, who are also those benefiting, will stay the course as long as they can. Wouldn't you?
Our presence in Iraq makes a lot of sense when you consider that those closely connected to the people who make the decisions in the government have been profiting handsomely since the U.S. military invaded Iraq.
That is why there was such a rush to invade.
That is why there is no real military strategy for victory.
That is why there are so many contractors in Iraq.
That is why future presidents will decide when we leave. (That nest egg gets bigger every day.)
That is why there are so many allegations of corruption in government.
War is worth a lot of money to a very select few.
The people responsible, who are also those benefiting, will stay the course as long as they can. Wouldn't you?
Finding the Fathers
I don't own a car, but I drive a Flexcar when, on occasion, it is necessary to get from A to B outside of the bus schedule's constraints. I listen to talk radio exclusively when I drive alone because I love to listen to people call a radio host and receive the latter's praise or derision.
One of them this morning left a particularly poignant reminder of the political discourse to which pundits cling. For some reason the host, a self-proclaimed liberal and critic of the current administration, felt it appropriate to reference the founding fathers, even going so far as to say something like, "all of the first President's with the exception of John Adams, did or were X."
I hope that any reader of this post is familiar with a few of my guiding principles by now. To reiterate, one of those is the non-sacredness of the Founding Fathers. First of all, I don't really know to whom that term refers. Is it those who signed the Declaration of Independence? Is it those who wrote it? Is it the first five to 10 presidents of this country? Was it everyone who attended the Constitutional Convention? Everyone on Mount Rushmore? Who are they?
If they refer to more than three people, say Adams, Jefferson, and Washington, there is hardly any possibility of a consistent political worldview among them. They all were affiliated with different groups. Adams and Jefferson rarely agreed on anything before 1815 as far as I can tell, at least from what I have read. To disclaim yet again, I am no expert in early American political history, but I am tired of the invocation of that term in order to validate one's opinion. Above all, I hate it when so called "liberals" employ that tactic because it serves only to erode their credibility.
Allow me to elaborate.
Those people who were responsible for chasing the British army out of their U.S. colonies were not interested in creating a country with freedom and justice for all. They gave no rights to women; they affirmed the institution of slavery; they stole the land that made up the country from its owners just before calculating their slaughter, and they vested most of the real power to govern in themselves--the wealthy, landowning class.
For all the talk, there was very little democracy in any of the institutions. The state legislatures chose the Senators in those days instead of direct elections. The people did not even directly vote for a president. Certainly those were different times, the country was different, the world was different, but that does not alter the conclusion that they actually did very little to create a democratic society. They simply created a similar one in which they were not obliged to a monarch across the ocean.
However, they did establish the rule of law, and promulgated a Constitution that would provide a framework of adaptability to times other than their own. These accomplishments should not be overshadowed by my criticism.
The point is the Republican leaders' comparison to the founding fathers is much more consistent with who I think the founding fathers were. I don't look at their leadership as desirable and I certainly do not approve of the use of that term to describe anything close to the ideal form of government. It is better than absolutism, autocracy, totalitarianism, and other forms of complete authoritarianism. As a country, given our resources, and our ingenuity, I think we can do better than compare ourselves to the founding fathers.
One of them this morning left a particularly poignant reminder of the political discourse to which pundits cling. For some reason the host, a self-proclaimed liberal and critic of the current administration, felt it appropriate to reference the founding fathers, even going so far as to say something like, "all of the first President's with the exception of John Adams, did or were X."
I hope that any reader of this post is familiar with a few of my guiding principles by now. To reiterate, one of those is the non-sacredness of the Founding Fathers. First of all, I don't really know to whom that term refers. Is it those who signed the Declaration of Independence? Is it those who wrote it? Is it the first five to 10 presidents of this country? Was it everyone who attended the Constitutional Convention? Everyone on Mount Rushmore? Who are they?
If they refer to more than three people, say Adams, Jefferson, and Washington, there is hardly any possibility of a consistent political worldview among them. They all were affiliated with different groups. Adams and Jefferson rarely agreed on anything before 1815 as far as I can tell, at least from what I have read. To disclaim yet again, I am no expert in early American political history, but I am tired of the invocation of that term in order to validate one's opinion. Above all, I hate it when so called "liberals" employ that tactic because it serves only to erode their credibility.
Allow me to elaborate.
Those people who were responsible for chasing the British army out of their U.S. colonies were not interested in creating a country with freedom and justice for all. They gave no rights to women; they affirmed the institution of slavery; they stole the land that made up the country from its owners just before calculating their slaughter, and they vested most of the real power to govern in themselves--the wealthy, landowning class.
For all the talk, there was very little democracy in any of the institutions. The state legislatures chose the Senators in those days instead of direct elections. The people did not even directly vote for a president. Certainly those were different times, the country was different, the world was different, but that does not alter the conclusion that they actually did very little to create a democratic society. They simply created a similar one in which they were not obliged to a monarch across the ocean.
However, they did establish the rule of law, and promulgated a Constitution that would provide a framework of adaptability to times other than their own. These accomplishments should not be overshadowed by my criticism.
The point is the Republican leaders' comparison to the founding fathers is much more consistent with who I think the founding fathers were. I don't look at their leadership as desirable and I certainly do not approve of the use of that term to describe anything close to the ideal form of government. It is better than absolutism, autocracy, totalitarianism, and other forms of complete authoritarianism. As a country, given our resources, and our ingenuity, I think we can do better than compare ourselves to the founding fathers.
Job Production in Germany
The rise and fall of any given Western civilization typically depends on their ability to take full advantage of the natural resources within their geographic designation.
Until Modern times, it was wood, and river power. The tribes that became the most powerful in Europe were those that controlled the forests and the rivers that allowed transportation to and from them.
The UK reigned supreme because it was rich in coal. To a lesser degree, the same is true for France and Germany depending on who controlled the coal deposits of Alsace-Lorraine. France and Germany fought for several generations, culminating in World War II over this coal-rich area.
The United States has become the unchallenged, supreme power in the world largely because of its natural resources.
Energy is power; that is a simple concept. That tends to be the reason I find articles like this one so worthy of reading.
Let's examine quickly all of the reasons to exploit, alternative, renewable energy sources:
Easy on the environment,
Job production
Less dependence on foreign oil
Fewer foreign entanglements
Less pollution
Renewable
I do not want to post about the merits of alternative energy sources. I just want to point out why we are not aggressively pursuing this kind of development. You should know the answer: A corporation's job is to make as much money as possible. Corporations can make more money by keeping things the same, (to hell with our ability to breath) than they can by spending a lot of money to develop other sources. That's why after all we know about fossil fuels, global warming, and all the adverse health effects of excessive fuel consumption, GM is increasing production of SUV's.
Way to go Germany!
Until Modern times, it was wood, and river power. The tribes that became the most powerful in Europe were those that controlled the forests and the rivers that allowed transportation to and from them.
The UK reigned supreme because it was rich in coal. To a lesser degree, the same is true for France and Germany depending on who controlled the coal deposits of Alsace-Lorraine. France and Germany fought for several generations, culminating in World War II over this coal-rich area.
The United States has become the unchallenged, supreme power in the world largely because of its natural resources.
Energy is power; that is a simple concept. That tends to be the reason I find articles like this one so worthy of reading.
Let's examine quickly all of the reasons to exploit, alternative, renewable energy sources:
Easy on the environment,
Job production
Less dependence on foreign oil
Fewer foreign entanglements
Less pollution
Renewable
I do not want to post about the merits of alternative energy sources. I just want to point out why we are not aggressively pursuing this kind of development. You should know the answer: A corporation's job is to make as much money as possible. Corporations can make more money by keeping things the same, (to hell with our ability to breath) than they can by spending a lot of money to develop other sources. That's why after all we know about fossil fuels, global warming, and all the adverse health effects of excessive fuel consumption, GM is increasing production of SUV's.
Way to go Germany!
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
Tort Reform Retort
I wanted bring your attention to the debate on tort reform. If you read my take, hopefully, you also read Jonathan Stein's article. Please read the comments because there are some terrific arguments and new points of view.
As I have said before, blogs and blawgs allow people to voice their opinions. In a society that purports to be democratic, debate and dissent are essential. Enjoy it while you still can!
As I have said before, blogs and blawgs allow people to voice their opinions. In a society that purports to be democratic, debate and dissent are essential. Enjoy it while you still can!
Monday, March 20, 2006
What to do?
There must be millions of people willing to write about what is wrong with our society, but there always seems to very few who offer solutions. In response to a comment on a previous post, I decided to offer my ideas.
To disclaim, this is the big picture as I see it. I cannot speak about what can be done in each locality in the country. My suggestion concerns only what must be done within culture and society at large. It is up to you to decide how such ideas can be implemented in a location near you. I'll give you both the long-term and short-term vision, recognizing that social changes will never occur overnight, at least in any desirable manner.
Short term:
If we want to get out of Iraq, we need to support those candidates for public office who run on that platform. I think the answer is fairly simple and my take on it is likewise simplistic. Certainly, there are people running for the Senate or the House this year who want to reduce the number of troops in Iraq. Certainly, some of them will change their minds when they get to Washington, but not all of them will. The war will end regardless of the victory strategy, when enough people in this country make it known to their representatives, that our continued presence in Iraq will cost them elections. If our representatives do not acknowledge this fact, we will send another representative who is more willing to follow the dictates of her/his constituency.
This is a principle that does not concern political parties, which say and do whatever it takes to consolidate their grip on the power. If that means doing something against the party line, they will do it save their own skins. However, if we do not get involved in this process, as is largely the case today, the representatives will not have that pressure and will answer to their campaign donors, rather than the voters. We must apply that pressure.
Long Term:
We need to reduce the number of barriers between people. Due to the proliferation of automobile ownership, suburbs, highway projects, business parks and campuses, drivethru's, supermarkets, and strip malls, we have become detached from each other. This trend continues to a frightening degree through email, chat rooms, and many other recent communication innovations that allow for anonymous interaction.
While none of these things is inherently bad, at least one overall latent consequence is that they disengage people from each other. They smother casual and informal relationships between people and that only serves to brew fear and selfishness. It is hard to care about people you do not know. It is impossible to form a relationship with a supermarket, but easy to do so with the corner grocer. When was the last time you recognized the cashier at your local supermarket? (Ironically, most of the TV commercials for these establishments would lead you to believe that you do have a relationship, going so far as to portray satisfied customers reminiscing about their favorite deli worker. Is that really the case?) When you do not realize the stake that you hold in your community; and worse yet, when you have no stake in your community, it becomes nearly impossible to involve yourself in it.
People who associate with other people will inevitably begin to realize their potential. That potential can manifest itself in countless ways. First and foremost, it will empower people to take a more active role in their communities. Once they realize their stake in the community, people will start building stronger communities.
Let me illustrate. Many people own a piece of land in a town, but most feel like they have no ownership stake in the town. Most people rely on large businesses to move in to create jobs, and pay taxes to fund schools, build parks, and other amenities. There is no reason why enough people cannot put their heads together and take their lives into their own hands. It takes creativity, ingenuity, certainly time and it does take money, but above all, it requires people to get together. Almost every town has a chamber of commerce where business leaders can push their agenda, but how many towns have resident councils, neighborhood councils, or some other entity which represents the community's interest at large? There is no reason this cannot happen, but people have to remove the barriers and start talking first. For some wonderful examples of what people can accomplish, take look at this book.
I am not naïve enough to think that the state of affairs is going to change dramatically because a few people started having conversations. However, I know that no desirable development in this country that we use today to extol our greatness occurred because the government granted it without a lot of people asking. Each of these movements and each result came about because enough people decided they wanted it, and worked for it. They gained a voice, and used it.
We can certainly take our chances by doing nothing, but change never resulted from doing nothing. Iraq is a symptom of the larger problem of fear, apathy, and a general sentiment of helplessness. Engagement and association with each other is the solution.
To disclaim, this is the big picture as I see it. I cannot speak about what can be done in each locality in the country. My suggestion concerns only what must be done within culture and society at large. It is up to you to decide how such ideas can be implemented in a location near you. I'll give you both the long-term and short-term vision, recognizing that social changes will never occur overnight, at least in any desirable manner.
Short term:
If we want to get out of Iraq, we need to support those candidates for public office who run on that platform. I think the answer is fairly simple and my take on it is likewise simplistic. Certainly, there are people running for the Senate or the House this year who want to reduce the number of troops in Iraq. Certainly, some of them will change their minds when they get to Washington, but not all of them will. The war will end regardless of the victory strategy, when enough people in this country make it known to their representatives, that our continued presence in Iraq will cost them elections. If our representatives do not acknowledge this fact, we will send another representative who is more willing to follow the dictates of her/his constituency.
This is a principle that does not concern political parties, which say and do whatever it takes to consolidate their grip on the power. If that means doing something against the party line, they will do it save their own skins. However, if we do not get involved in this process, as is largely the case today, the representatives will not have that pressure and will answer to their campaign donors, rather than the voters. We must apply that pressure.
Long Term:
We need to reduce the number of barriers between people. Due to the proliferation of automobile ownership, suburbs, highway projects, business parks and campuses, drivethru's, supermarkets, and strip malls, we have become detached from each other. This trend continues to a frightening degree through email, chat rooms, and many other recent communication innovations that allow for anonymous interaction.
While none of these things is inherently bad, at least one overall latent consequence is that they disengage people from each other. They smother casual and informal relationships between people and that only serves to brew fear and selfishness. It is hard to care about people you do not know. It is impossible to form a relationship with a supermarket, but easy to do so with the corner grocer. When was the last time you recognized the cashier at your local supermarket? (Ironically, most of the TV commercials for these establishments would lead you to believe that you do have a relationship, going so far as to portray satisfied customers reminiscing about their favorite deli worker. Is that really the case?) When you do not realize the stake that you hold in your community; and worse yet, when you have no stake in your community, it becomes nearly impossible to involve yourself in it.
People who associate with other people will inevitably begin to realize their potential. That potential can manifest itself in countless ways. First and foremost, it will empower people to take a more active role in their communities. Once they realize their stake in the community, people will start building stronger communities.
Let me illustrate. Many people own a piece of land in a town, but most feel like they have no ownership stake in the town. Most people rely on large businesses to move in to create jobs, and pay taxes to fund schools, build parks, and other amenities. There is no reason why enough people cannot put their heads together and take their lives into their own hands. It takes creativity, ingenuity, certainly time and it does take money, but above all, it requires people to get together. Almost every town has a chamber of commerce where business leaders can push their agenda, but how many towns have resident councils, neighborhood councils, or some other entity which represents the community's interest at large? There is no reason this cannot happen, but people have to remove the barriers and start talking first. For some wonderful examples of what people can accomplish, take look at this book.
I am not naïve enough to think that the state of affairs is going to change dramatically because a few people started having conversations. However, I know that no desirable development in this country that we use today to extol our greatness occurred because the government granted it without a lot of people asking. Each of these movements and each result came about because enough people decided they wanted it, and worked for it. They gained a voice, and used it.
We can certainly take our chances by doing nothing, but change never resulted from doing nothing. Iraq is a symptom of the larger problem of fear, apathy, and a general sentiment of helplessness. Engagement and association with each other is the solution.
Sunday, March 19, 2006
V.V. Putin's Energy Plan Update
The alleged leak agenda for the G8 of which Russia is the current president.
Not exactly what I would have hoped, but I know better than to hope. Another nice little rule to keep in mind, those in
Tort Reform?
I agree for the most part with the comments of another lawyer blogger. Sometimes they refer to themselves as blawgers. Be that as it may, this article makes some salient and timely arguments. I certainly am not an objective observer, but I would like to add some thoughts.
The subtle use of words in our society completely reinforces the power structures that are in place. Our country is not unique in this regard. It is the case in every single stable society that has ever existed. Otherwise, there would be much less "law and order."
In our culture, the perception is that the personal injury attorneys are the "bad guys." They chase ambulances; they prey on those who have no alternatives, they seek gain through the suffering and injury of others. The very mention of personal injury law or personal injury lawyer is typically somewhat derisive in common usage. Doesn't that make sense?
Now on the other hand, the lawyers who work for insurance companies to ensure the lowest possible responsibility are usually known as "commercial litigators." You rarely read or hear about the insurance companies' hand in things like high premium rates or smothering business. That blame falls squarely on the shoulders of the infamous personal injury lawyers.
Thus, enters "tort reform." That is the term that insurance companies and their lobbyists call the solution. As they articulate it, the problem is that high insurance rates are inhibiting the ability of businesses and doctors to "practice their love" all over the country, and lawyers are responsible for the high interest rates. The substance of "tort reform" is to reduce potential awards that plaintiffs could receive and I would imagine plans may even be to permanently cut off a plaintiff's right to sue altogether.
Let me illustrate the importance of this dynamic with a simple little story. Let's pretend that I like to steal wallets from people while walking down the street. I might get away with that for a while, but eventually, someone is going to catch me and call the police. I might get arrested, I might even be held in jail for a day or two. I have no idea what the sentence for conviction is in your jurisdiction, but at the very least I might have to do some community service.
Now let's pretend that I am a corporation who has been dumping waste into the local water supply. A few people might get sick, some might even die of cancer. Over a 10 year period, there may be numerous adverse heath and environmental problems. Those living in the community suffering from these problems would have no simple recourse. They could complain, protest, or even start an anti-Mark Inc. crusade among the local media affiliates. However, the police would never respond on your behalf and unless someone on the inside "blew the whistle" alleging that someone within is breaking the law, no one would ever be arrested. (Actually, those who protest Mark Inc. may be arrested for disturbance of the peace, or trespassing.) Remember, a corporation's job is to make money for its investors, so chances are the officers and directors of Mark Inc. calculated that it would be less expensive to pay the Environmental Protection Agency fines for dumping waste, which may or may not be enforced, than it would be to responsibly dispose of their waste.
The only recourse any one would have against Mark Inc. is to find a lawyer willing to file a lawsuit on her own dime (without interest as Mr. Stein pointed out). It is therefore, not at all surprising that there are forces pushing a "tort reform" agenda.
No one wants to hire a personal injury lawyer. That can only mean that something terrible has happened. However, when something terrible does happen it is at least somewhat comforting to know that, at least for the time being, you do have some ability to hold those who are culpable to account.
The subtle use of words in our society completely reinforces the power structures that are in place. Our country is not unique in this regard. It is the case in every single stable society that has ever existed. Otherwise, there would be much less "law and order."
In our culture, the perception is that the personal injury attorneys are the "bad guys." They chase ambulances; they prey on those who have no alternatives, they seek gain through the suffering and injury of others. The very mention of personal injury law or personal injury lawyer is typically somewhat derisive in common usage. Doesn't that make sense?
Now on the other hand, the lawyers who work for insurance companies to ensure the lowest possible responsibility are usually known as "commercial litigators." You rarely read or hear about the insurance companies' hand in things like high premium rates or smothering business. That blame falls squarely on the shoulders of the infamous personal injury lawyers.
Thus, enters "tort reform." That is the term that insurance companies and their lobbyists call the solution. As they articulate it, the problem is that high insurance rates are inhibiting the ability of businesses and doctors to "practice their love" all over the country, and lawyers are responsible for the high interest rates. The substance of "tort reform" is to reduce potential awards that plaintiffs could receive and I would imagine plans may even be to permanently cut off a plaintiff's right to sue altogether.
Let me illustrate the importance of this dynamic with a simple little story. Let's pretend that I like to steal wallets from people while walking down the street. I might get away with that for a while, but eventually, someone is going to catch me and call the police. I might get arrested, I might even be held in jail for a day or two. I have no idea what the sentence for conviction is in your jurisdiction, but at the very least I might have to do some community service.
Now let's pretend that I am a corporation who has been dumping waste into the local water supply. A few people might get sick, some might even die of cancer. Over a 10 year period, there may be numerous adverse heath and environmental problems. Those living in the community suffering from these problems would have no simple recourse. They could complain, protest, or even start an anti-Mark Inc. crusade among the local media affiliates. However, the police would never respond on your behalf and unless someone on the inside "blew the whistle" alleging that someone within is breaking the law, no one would ever be arrested. (Actually, those who protest Mark Inc. may be arrested for disturbance of the peace, or trespassing.) Remember, a corporation's job is to make money for its investors, so chances are the officers and directors of Mark Inc. calculated that it would be less expensive to pay the Environmental Protection Agency fines for dumping waste, which may or may not be enforced, than it would be to responsibly dispose of their waste.
The only recourse any one would have against Mark Inc. is to find a lawyer willing to file a lawsuit on her own dime (without interest as Mr. Stein pointed out). It is therefore, not at all surprising that there are forces pushing a "tort reform" agenda.
No one wants to hire a personal injury lawyer. That can only mean that something terrible has happened. However, when something terrible does happen it is at least somewhat comforting to know that, at least for the time being, you do have some ability to hold those who are culpable to account.
America's Heartland
This article is worth a read. I am, like every person in this country, concerned about America's security. However, I never believed that an invasion of Iraq had anything to do with America's security. I think the invasion of Iraq is about money just like 99% of the "why's" in the universe. While most people in this country will not personally profit from U.S. military presence in Iraq, there are plenty of people who will. These people are primarily within large corporations that are favorably paired with the U.S. government. You have heard the names many times so I will not repeat them.
This article interested me because I was reminded of all the people out there who sincerely believe that there is some sort of "victory strategy" in Iraq. Certainly, the plan is not to place troops in front of angry locals with guns. However, that has become the concession in order to create some semblance of security for large corporations to operate, or at least to take government contracts.
You may wonder why these reasons are not discussed and debated on the news and opinion/editorial pages. The answer is again quite simple; no one would support sending troops to a place like Iraq in order to increase the revenue of a select group of large corporations. On the other hand, if the security of the nation is at stake, people demonstrate immense willingness to put their livelihoods on the line.
This article interested me because I was reminded of all the people out there who sincerely believe that there is some sort of "victory strategy" in Iraq. Certainly, the plan is not to place troops in front of angry locals with guns. However, that has become the concession in order to create some semblance of security for large corporations to operate, or at least to take government contracts.
You may wonder why these reasons are not discussed and debated on the news and opinion/editorial pages. The answer is again quite simple; no one would support sending troops to a place like Iraq in order to increase the revenue of a select group of large corporations. On the other hand, if the security of the nation is at stake, people demonstrate immense willingness to put their livelihoods on the line.
Saturday, March 18, 2006
Energy Security for the World, by V. V. Putin
I feel obligated to post this article penned by Vladimir Vladimirovich himself. This blog is, after all, supposed to cover some aspects of Russia.
I always find it interesting to read about the conclusions that leaders draw about energy. Of course, I do get suspicious with his use of the word "stakeholders" when speaking about energy. Each one of us are stakeholders in the game global energy. In my experience, leaders who use stakeholders really intend that word to convey an image of something kind and gentle even though it is just a synonym for shareholders.
However, the article does say what we all want to hear, i.e. the most powerful among us are looking out for all of us. Do you believe it? Should you believe it?
I always find it interesting to read about the conclusions that leaders draw about energy. Of course, I do get suspicious with his use of the word "stakeholders" when speaking about energy. Each one of us are stakeholders in the game global energy. In my experience, leaders who use stakeholders really intend that word to convey an image of something kind and gentle even though it is just a synonym for shareholders.
However, the article does say what we all want to hear, i.e. the most powerful among us are looking out for all of us. Do you believe it? Should you believe it?
Simple Truths: The Corporation
My parents are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, also known as Mormons. Consequently, I was raised a Mormon and spent most of every Sunday until I was a teenager learning about, as I was told they are called, the "simple truths" of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Although I have long since abandoned my faith in that particular school of thought (or cognitive dissonance as I like to think of it), I still cling to the idea that there are truths that are simple. Whether there really is truth and whether it could possibly be simple is another discussion altogether.
In the United States, there is at least one simple truth, and one that can be articulated very simply: the objective of any incorporated entity is to make the most possible money for its investors. Put another way, a corporation's single purpose is to make as much money as possible.
In the study of law, these truths are flowered up by judicial holdings and statutes to make it sound a little less menacing, but make no mistake, the purpose is clear. If the CEO, or any directors are thought to have been less than faithful and loyal to these purposes, they may be, at the very least, removed from their position. They may even be sued by shareholders in the name of the corporation.
Once you accept and internalize this simple truth, you should begin to see things under an entirely different framework. I have numerous conversations on this subject with people and I am amazed at how difficult it is for people to accept this. I believe it is because people feel that there is something very wrong with that premise.
When you get angry at an oil company for spilling oil into the Puget Sound, remember that at some point a decision was made that if they take fewer precautions in transporting oil, it would cost them less than cleaning up an oil spill--or denying fault in the event.
How about your local national car repair chain? Their objective of fixing your car will never supersede its profit motive. If it is less expensive, and even if they can make an example of you by vigorously defending your completely legitimate complaints, they will do so regardless of their customer-first approach they portray in their numerous advertisements and TV commercials.
Remember the next time you see and hear something from a news organization, all of which are owned by a small number of very large corporate conglomerates, that you are only hearing that which will not impede the overarching goal of their profit maximization. There are no principles and values involved. For example, Fox News consistently features pundits and speakers who extol family values, but they are also the network whose TV shows feature The Simpson's and Family Guy--hardly the model of traditional family values.
What about all those banks that lend money to communities in need? All those that look "beyond the numbers," because people matter to them most? If you believe that, you have not internalized today's simple truth.
Are corporations responsible for some "good" in our society and culture? Certainly, but never at the expense of their first and single responsibility. If they were to do so, the directors and officers would be removed and as I said, may even be the subject of extended litigation.
This is a simple truth. However, it is one that people resist accepting because it fundamentally alters, for the worse I would say, the perception of the place of people in our culture and society. That will only change for the better when people begin to accept the current situation.
In the United States, there is at least one simple truth, and one that can be articulated very simply: the objective of any incorporated entity is to make the most possible money for its investors. Put another way, a corporation's single purpose is to make as much money as possible.
In the study of law, these truths are flowered up by judicial holdings and statutes to make it sound a little less menacing, but make no mistake, the purpose is clear. If the CEO, or any directors are thought to have been less than faithful and loyal to these purposes, they may be, at the very least, removed from their position. They may even be sued by shareholders in the name of the corporation.
Once you accept and internalize this simple truth, you should begin to see things under an entirely different framework. I have numerous conversations on this subject with people and I am amazed at how difficult it is for people to accept this. I believe it is because people feel that there is something very wrong with that premise.
When you get angry at an oil company for spilling oil into the Puget Sound, remember that at some point a decision was made that if they take fewer precautions in transporting oil, it would cost them less than cleaning up an oil spill--or denying fault in the event.
How about your local national car repair chain? Their objective of fixing your car will never supersede its profit motive. If it is less expensive, and even if they can make an example of you by vigorously defending your completely legitimate complaints, they will do so regardless of their customer-first approach they portray in their numerous advertisements and TV commercials.
Remember the next time you see and hear something from a news organization, all of which are owned by a small number of very large corporate conglomerates, that you are only hearing that which will not impede the overarching goal of their profit maximization. There are no principles and values involved. For example, Fox News consistently features pundits and speakers who extol family values, but they are also the network whose TV shows feature The Simpson's and Family Guy--hardly the model of traditional family values.
What about all those banks that lend money to communities in need? All those that look "beyond the numbers," because people matter to them most? If you believe that, you have not internalized today's simple truth.
Are corporations responsible for some "good" in our society and culture? Certainly, but never at the expense of their first and single responsibility. If they were to do so, the directors and officers would be removed and as I said, may even be the subject of extended litigation.
This is a simple truth. However, it is one that people resist accepting because it fundamentally alters, for the worse I would say, the perception of the place of people in our culture and society. That will only change for the better when people begin to accept the current situation.
Operation Swarmer
There are numerous articles that explore the efficacy of the latest and greatest from our military. Here is one take from the BBC. Time has another. Operation Swarmer is the code name for the mission and forgettable may be the best description. What kind of a mission was it intended to be?
Feingold and Greenwald
This is one of the more interesting articles that I have read about Senator Feingold's bill to censure GWB.
The short version is that most Democratic voters support the censure and thus Feingold's popularity has increased even though the rest of the Democratic Senators are running for cover. It might be wise for more Democrats to jump on board because they will likely benefit from greater support from the 50% of the country who are "somewhat to very" inclined toward the left.
As you might imagine, I thoroughly enjoy reading blogs of all shapes, sizes, tongues, creeds, and viewpoints. However, those of the political vein limit their debates to cover only a tiny fraction of the political spectrum. Essentially, if it is not an issue that does not come up in the news, which further functions to limit the discourse, the bloggers rarely talk about it.
That said, blogs do allow anyone who has enough time and patience to articulate their ideas. Eventually, more people will gradually become more exposed to ideas that are outside of the so-called "mainstream." (Of course, I consider "mainstream" to be a term that some use to discredit a view that is inconsistent with the amalgamation of swill the Democrats and Republicans spew.) In the meantime, we can expect more of the same from both parties. In every election over the last 30 years, the same group of people benefits and neither party shows any sign of doing anything but continue that trend.
The short version is that most Democratic voters support the censure and thus Feingold's popularity has increased even though the rest of the Democratic Senators are running for cover. It might be wise for more Democrats to jump on board because they will likely benefit from greater support from the 50% of the country who are "somewhat to very" inclined toward the left.
As you might imagine, I thoroughly enjoy reading blogs of all shapes, sizes, tongues, creeds, and viewpoints. However, those of the political vein limit their debates to cover only a tiny fraction of the political spectrum. Essentially, if it is not an issue that does not come up in the news, which further functions to limit the discourse, the bloggers rarely talk about it.
That said, blogs do allow anyone who has enough time and patience to articulate their ideas. Eventually, more people will gradually become more exposed to ideas that are outside of the so-called "mainstream." (Of course, I consider "mainstream" to be a term that some use to discredit a view that is inconsistent with the amalgamation of swill the Democrats and Republicans spew.) In the meantime, we can expect more of the same from both parties. In every election over the last 30 years, the same group of people benefits and neither party shows any sign of doing anything but continue that trend.
Friday, March 17, 2006
Another Update in Iraq
It turns out there was something else behind the recent air attack beyond what we were led to believe by the evening news.
I let you read the information for yourselves, and make your own conclusions.
I let you read the information for yourselves, and make your own conclusions.
Of the people, by the people, for the people...
Do you have $10 million dollars that you want to throw into your campaign coffers in your bid for the U.S. Senate? Do you have $10 for lunch? Do you have $100 in your savings account? Do you have a savings account?
This is another installment of my continuing rant about the disconnect between the American dream and the American reality. In our educational experience, most of us were taught that hard work will lead to prosperity and wealth. That principle applies regardless of how much we start out with. You hear countless stories about all the self made billionaires out there who started with a suitcase full of dirty socks, a can of tomatoes, and three saltine crackers, and built a soup empire vast enough to end world hunger.
Most of the people who heard these types of stories with me in public schools went on to become forklift drivers, insurances brokers, salespeople, bricklayers, and some of them even started a technology company in the late 1990's. They worked hard, some were able to buy homes and others even have some degree of financial stability.
Most of the extremely wealthy out there started with considerably more. I am not going to list any people, but it is a fun research exercise. Wikipedia your favorite rich person and read about his/her early life. It is extremely illuminating.
Then there's our favorite former Secretary of State of Florida, (perhaps because she is the only we know), who is able to dump $10,000,000.00 of her own money into your campaign for U.S. Senate. This coming shortly after allegations that she took funds illegally from defense contractors associated with the fallen "Duke"-stir.
You cannot be a citizen of this country or a member of this culture very long without realizing the perception of the ultimate "goodness" of the United States. Its history has been crafted to conform to a narrative that good people are always rewarded; that people whose actions are questionable will be punished; that the founders of this country had the best interests of the people in mind without any other motives. Further, the politicians of our day assume the mantle of the great revered founding fathers; just as they were nearly divine in nature, so are our present day leaders. The "goodness" with which the founding fathers endowed this country will never expire because it is drawn with the authority, and blessing, of God. Therefore, it cannot be flawed. However, most people probably realize that our history is not a story from the Bible.
I volunteer at a few legal clinics in Seattle. During these clinics, people who have run into legal issues can speak with a lawyer. They have about 20 minutes to talk without charge. The one thing that is common to each person with whom I have ever spoken is that they believe that in a just legal system, of a righteous country, within a divinely inspired-world, bad things cannot happen to good people who work hard for a living.
There certainly is a disconnect, and the same group of people consistently end up on the same side of the social dynamic.
This is another installment of my continuing rant about the disconnect between the American dream and the American reality. In our educational experience, most of us were taught that hard work will lead to prosperity and wealth. That principle applies regardless of how much we start out with. You hear countless stories about all the self made billionaires out there who started with a suitcase full of dirty socks, a can of tomatoes, and three saltine crackers, and built a soup empire vast enough to end world hunger.
Most of the people who heard these types of stories with me in public schools went on to become forklift drivers, insurances brokers, salespeople, bricklayers, and some of them even started a technology company in the late 1990's. They worked hard, some were able to buy homes and others even have some degree of financial stability.
Most of the extremely wealthy out there started with considerably more. I am not going to list any people, but it is a fun research exercise. Wikipedia your favorite rich person and read about his/her early life. It is extremely illuminating.
Then there's our favorite former Secretary of State of Florida, (perhaps because she is the only we know), who is able to dump $10,000,000.00 of her own money into your campaign for U.S. Senate. This coming shortly after allegations that she took funds illegally from defense contractors associated with the fallen "Duke"-stir.
You cannot be a citizen of this country or a member of this culture very long without realizing the perception of the ultimate "goodness" of the United States. Its history has been crafted to conform to a narrative that good people are always rewarded; that people whose actions are questionable will be punished; that the founders of this country had the best interests of the people in mind without any other motives. Further, the politicians of our day assume the mantle of the great revered founding fathers; just as they were nearly divine in nature, so are our present day leaders. The "goodness" with which the founding fathers endowed this country will never expire because it is drawn with the authority, and blessing, of God. Therefore, it cannot be flawed. However, most people probably realize that our history is not a story from the Bible.
I volunteer at a few legal clinics in Seattle. During these clinics, people who have run into legal issues can speak with a lawyer. They have about 20 minutes to talk without charge. The one thing that is common to each person with whom I have ever spoken is that they believe that in a just legal system, of a righteous country, within a divinely inspired-world, bad things cannot happen to good people who work hard for a living.
There certainly is a disconnect, and the same group of people consistently end up on the same side of the social dynamic.
Thursday, March 16, 2006
News from Iraq
I am just one member of the majority of Americans who think the war in Iraq was a mistake. I am also a member of the majority of Americans who dissaprove of the handling of the war in Iraq. Because Iraq is on the other side of the globe, my information is limited to what I read in the newspapars. That information may or may not be filtered. Suffice it to say, I have limited information on the situation, but that does not preclude me from voicing my opinions on it.
Today's big story from Iraq is disturbing because I really have no idea of the objective by engaging in the largest air attack since the beginning of the war. Presumably, we have been attacking insurgents, militants, and other combatants, up to this point. Thus, if we knew where they were, we would be going after them. This appears to another round of 'shock and awe' to terrify those that survive into submission. The target may even be civilians who are contemplating arming themselves.
History is full of examples of angry people taking up arms against oppressive forces that claim authority and demand submission. People are more likely to rebel against those forces when they have nothing left to lose, when they don't have to worry about protecting family members, property, or anything else.
Again, I am no foreign policy expert, and do not hold myself out as one. However, there are certain principles that do not require advance degrees and years of study. As a child on the playground, I realized that I should not spit on everyone else in the playground. They might gang up on me. Even the biggest kid on the playground, that hulking third grader, could not stop everyone if they united against him. The U.S. is certainly, the biggest, smartest, and most powerful kid ever to grace that playground, but I still think it is better to play nicely and share, rather than take over the entire playground and hope that a sufficient number of enemies do not get together against you.
Ask 1,000 people what they would do in the same situation and most of them will respond as I would. Most people are 'good' people. It is funny what happens when we are taken out of that face to face context. It is frightening what we tacitly accept.
Today's big story from Iraq is disturbing because I really have no idea of the objective by engaging in the largest air attack since the beginning of the war. Presumably, we have been attacking insurgents, militants, and other combatants, up to this point. Thus, if we knew where they were, we would be going after them. This appears to another round of 'shock and awe' to terrify those that survive into submission. The target may even be civilians who are contemplating arming themselves.
History is full of examples of angry people taking up arms against oppressive forces that claim authority and demand submission. People are more likely to rebel against those forces when they have nothing left to lose, when they don't have to worry about protecting family members, property, or anything else.
Again, I am no foreign policy expert, and do not hold myself out as one. However, there are certain principles that do not require advance degrees and years of study. As a child on the playground, I realized that I should not spit on everyone else in the playground. They might gang up on me. Even the biggest kid on the playground, that hulking third grader, could not stop everyone if they united against him. The U.S. is certainly, the biggest, smartest, and most powerful kid ever to grace that playground, but I still think it is better to play nicely and share, rather than take over the entire playground and hope that a sufficient number of enemies do not get together against you.
Ask 1,000 people what they would do in the same situation and most of them will respond as I would. Most people are 'good' people. It is funny what happens when we are taken out of that face to face context. It is frightening what we tacitly accept.
Leading to Alternative Energy
77% of Americans think alternative energy projects should be top priority for Bush administration by ZDNet's ZDNet Research -- The CSI/40mpg.org survey found that 58% of Americans - including 57% of independents and 42% of conservatives - are more concerned about global warming today than they were two years ago. Also, more than three out of four Americans (76%) - including two out of three conservatives - think the federal government is not [...] doing enough.
I enjoy surveys about alternative energy. There are few people out there who really believe that we should increase our use fossil fuels. Almost everyone thinks we should develop renewable energy sources, and that the government should spend money on it. That is not happening--the secretary of the Department of Energy was all to quick to dismiss the mention of alternative energy in the State of the Union address.
One of the great disconnects in our wonderful representative democracy is the near absense of representation in our democracy. The people of the United States do not want to be addicted to oil, and we certainly would like to keep out of foreign entanglements in the future. For the most part however, we have not taken the extra step to get those things done. To paraphrase a bumper sticker and poster that you see all over the place "when the people lead, our leaders will follow". Trite, but true.
With that in mind, we'll start talking about local economic development soon!
Friday, March 10, 2006
Russian Literature
In the town of West Jordan, Utah, where I grew up, there lived a crotchety old curmudgeon (excuse the redundancy, but I love how that sounds), named Mr. Nelson. He taught the Russian classes that I chose over the big three of high school language instruction. While I never heard his pronunciation of "greetings" in Russia, I have always been grateful that Mr. Nelson planted the seed which has since grown into an absurd devotion to Russia.
Over the years, I continued to study Russian which included several extended visits, the longest of which exceeded two years. During that time, I was able to read plenty of Russian literature. Just as a breather from less interesting, more esoteric topics, I am going to list my favorite pieces of Russian literature. Please be advised, that I am no authority on this subject. The only warranty I make is that I personally enjoyed these books and found some value in them that I find applicable in some sense. If you do not, I offer you my deepest and most sincere apologies for wasting your time. On the other hand, these books will survive longer than Gresham, and Clancy combined. J.K. Rowlings? That's a tough one.
Now, to the list!
Bulgakov, Mikhail
The Master and Marguerite (This is far and away my favorite work of Soviet literature. It gives the most interesting treatment of truth, fact, Christianity, repression, and the human spirit. Maybe I am pushing things, but if you read this and are not moved, you must not be me.)
Heart of a Dog (perhaps the best allegory describing the dramatic transformation in the Russian collective soul that the Bolshevik revolution of 1917 brought)
Chekhov, Anton
The Cherry Orchard
Uncle Vanya
The Steppe
At Christmas
Dostoevsky, Fyodr (He is the stereotypical Russian author, a classification not without justification. If you have not read him yet, chances are you will not.)
Notes from the Underground--I suggest starting with this one and if you like it, work your way though the following:
Crime and Punishment
The Idiot
The Brothers Karamazov
If you are still thirsty for more, there are plenty and you will not likely be disappointed with any of them.
Gogol, Nikolai (When his remains were disinterred, the gravediggers found that he was face down in his coffin. With a death like that, you can rest assured that his writing is good.)
I like his short stories most
Nose
The Overcoat
The Inspector General
Dead Souls is also a must read.
Pushkin, Alexandr
Eugene Onegin (a Russian Lord Byron and his world of love, friendship, and loss)
The Captain's Daughter (many will disagree with me on this one, but I have always been a sucker for "historical" novels)
Solzhenitsyn, Alexandr
One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich
Cancer Ward (based loosely on his own battle with cancer)
Tolstoy, Lev (Lion)
If you are really into historical novels, read War and Peace. It is marvelous in its scope. As for Anna Karenina, I got my fill of people swooning in The Idiot. I like Tolstoy's work. His house in Moscow is one of my favorite museums, but if you are looking for anything more than a good yarn, you might skip him. If you are set on reading him, stick to his later works like Resurrection and work backwards.
Turgenev, Ivan
Fathers and Sons (this one contained was one of the first published use of the term "nihilist." My Russian professors always seemed to get more out of this book than I did, but I was a lot younger then. However, I do not want to give the impression that I did not enjoy it.)
Diary of a Superfluous Man (Does this one sound strangely familiar to Notes from the Underground? You'll have to check the first edition publication dates of both, read the books, and decide for yourself.)
Zamyatin, Evgenii
We (Does it feel a little like 1984? Heck no, we have much more advanced technology today.)
Over the years, I continued to study Russian which included several extended visits, the longest of which exceeded two years. During that time, I was able to read plenty of Russian literature. Just as a breather from less interesting, more esoteric topics, I am going to list my favorite pieces of Russian literature. Please be advised, that I am no authority on this subject. The only warranty I make is that I personally enjoyed these books and found some value in them that I find applicable in some sense. If you do not, I offer you my deepest and most sincere apologies for wasting your time. On the other hand, these books will survive longer than Gresham, and Clancy combined. J.K. Rowlings? That's a tough one.
Now, to the list!
Bulgakov, Mikhail
The Master and Marguerite (This is far and away my favorite work of Soviet literature. It gives the most interesting treatment of truth, fact, Christianity, repression, and the human spirit. Maybe I am pushing things, but if you read this and are not moved, you must not be me.)
Heart of a Dog (perhaps the best allegory describing the dramatic transformation in the Russian collective soul that the Bolshevik revolution of 1917 brought)
Chekhov, Anton
The Cherry Orchard
Uncle Vanya
The Steppe
At Christmas
Dostoevsky, Fyodr (He is the stereotypical Russian author, a classification not without justification. If you have not read him yet, chances are you will not.)
Notes from the Underground--I suggest starting with this one and if you like it, work your way though the following:
Crime and Punishment
The Idiot
The Brothers Karamazov
If you are still thirsty for more, there are plenty and you will not likely be disappointed with any of them.
Gogol, Nikolai (When his remains were disinterred, the gravediggers found that he was face down in his coffin. With a death like that, you can rest assured that his writing is good.)
I like his short stories most
Nose
The Overcoat
The Inspector General
Dead Souls is also a must read.
Pushkin, Alexandr
Eugene Onegin (a Russian Lord Byron and his world of love, friendship, and loss)
The Captain's Daughter (many will disagree with me on this one, but I have always been a sucker for "historical" novels)
Solzhenitsyn, Alexandr
One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich
Cancer Ward (based loosely on his own battle with cancer)
Tolstoy, Lev (Lion)
If you are really into historical novels, read War and Peace. It is marvelous in its scope. As for Anna Karenina, I got my fill of people swooning in The Idiot. I like Tolstoy's work. His house in Moscow is one of my favorite museums, but if you are looking for anything more than a good yarn, you might skip him. If you are set on reading him, stick to his later works like Resurrection and work backwards.
Turgenev, Ivan
Fathers and Sons (this one contained was one of the first published use of the term "nihilist." My Russian professors always seemed to get more out of this book than I did, but I was a lot younger then. However, I do not want to give the impression that I did not enjoy it.)
Diary of a Superfluous Man (Does this one sound strangely familiar to Notes from the Underground? You'll have to check the first edition publication dates of both, read the books, and decide for yourself.)
Zamyatin, Evgenii
We (Does it feel a little like 1984? Heck no, we have much more advanced technology today.)
Thursday, March 09, 2006
Dear AOL Update
I just wanted to update on the AOL email tax. Apparently, the number of names on the petition are increasing. The number of organizations against it are increasing.
Is AOL standing firm?
Again, this another interesting example of what happens when people get involved, take action, stand up, speak out, and just plain read stuff.
Remember the Dubai Port deal?
There are certainly many who hope not.
Is AOL standing firm?
Again, this another interesting example of what happens when people get involved, take action, stand up, speak out, and just plain read stuff.
Remember the Dubai Port deal?
There are certainly many who hope not.
Investigating TV
I do not get around to watching too much TV these days, but last night was an exception. I heard on some network investigative news show that "our children are buying drugs on the internet." I was immediately hooked!
The lead in before the commercial, to give you rabid anxiety and anticipation, was something like "imagine your children buying drugs, right now, on the internet."
I jotted the following phrases from the report:
"right now you can buy drugs online with your credit card"
"strangers are peddling drugs in your home, right now to your children"
"you don't even have to deal with thugs on the local street corner as you would with 'typical drugs'"
Just before I finished my transaction to take the sting out of my aching back, I gave pause. There are certainly people who abuse prescription pain killers. I certainly do not mean to make light of the situation, but I am always amazed at what is newsworthy in this country and what seems to escape mention time after time after time.
This particular piece implicitly concluded that there must be more regulation and less privacy on the internet so that strangers cannot sell drugs to your kids. That seems to coincide nicely with the recent effort of major media conglomerates to start charging for email. It also seemed to argue that NSA wiretapping is not only acceptable, but essential to our safety. I may be way off, but it seems to me that the point of this is to build a case that strengthens the position of those who wield the most power--at the expense of everyone else.
This single occurrence is anything but conclusive, but it does support the premise. Who am I kidding? Of course they are concerned most of all with our children.
The lead in before the commercial, to give you rabid anxiety and anticipation, was something like "imagine your children buying drugs, right now, on the internet."
I jotted the following phrases from the report:
"right now you can buy drugs online with your credit card"
"strangers are peddling drugs in your home, right now to your children"
"you don't even have to deal with thugs on the local street corner as you would with 'typical drugs'"
Just before I finished my transaction to take the sting out of my aching back, I gave pause. There are certainly people who abuse prescription pain killers. I certainly do not mean to make light of the situation, but I am always amazed at what is newsworthy in this country and what seems to escape mention time after time after time.
This particular piece implicitly concluded that there must be more regulation and less privacy on the internet so that strangers cannot sell drugs to your kids. That seems to coincide nicely with the recent effort of major media conglomerates to start charging for email. It also seemed to argue that NSA wiretapping is not only acceptable, but essential to our safety. I may be way off, but it seems to me that the point of this is to build a case that strengthens the position of those who wield the most power--at the expense of everyone else.
This single occurrence is anything but conclusive, but it does support the premise. Who am I kidding? Of course they are concerned most of all with our children.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
