On the corner on Broadway and Republican in our Capitol Hill neighborhood, Broadway's best video rental store has managed to weather the economic storms. The Gap, Fred Meyer, QFC (Kroger), Safeway and other multiregional publicly traded retailers, and suburban mainstays, left when their leases ended leaving the stretch of Broadway nothing but empty shells awaiting demolition and resurrection as multi-use condominium complex's Even though no one who made Capitol Hill great will be able to afford one, it is at least nice to know that the people who live in these ultra-overpriced boxes will become customers to a video shop that will appreciate them.
The same people have worked there for years. They walk to work each morning. I see them in the Capitol Hill coffee shops and bars. They allow my dog to wander around the store with me while I am looking for a video. Instead of bloating the selection with the most expensively produced new blockbuster, the shop's collections feature plenty of independent and quality films, and a documentary section that you would never find at a chain. And the store personnel know just about everything about every film on the shelf. Of course, when you want to watch the latest Witherspoon release or begin to feel that Bruckheimer has been absent from your life for too long, they are ready shed the layer of dust that usually collects on the case of that and similar tripe.
I am not sure how the owner is able to compete with Netflix and Blockbuster, but he does. I am certain there are many others in the area who are just as grateful for that as I am. The policy in the United States has been to squeeze the small businesses while subsidizing the large corporations with clear access to the power. While our elected officials tell us that their policies relieve small businesses of the economic crunch, I have difficultly accepting that.
If the administration really wanted to help small businesses, it would implement a national health program where employers with two or three employees can attract people who want to work for them. This would encourage part time employment that such businesses often need and maybe even allow people to work two or three jobs not because of the health insurance but because they like the job.
If the administration really wanted to help small businesses, they would raise corporate taxes for publicly traded corporations instead of reducing them. It would stop taking campaign donations from them and introducing bills favoring to these organizations, like the recent Internet Non-Neutrality nonsense.
If the administration really wanted to help small businesses, it would cease rewarding companies who can afford to spend billions in advertising with tax deductions. I have never seen Broadway Market Video's commercial on Fox News or even during the Mariners' game broadcast.
If the administration really wanted to help small businesses, it would allow people to borrow start-up funds through the Small Business Administration to promote their own innovations instead of limiting the dispursal of those funds to those who open Subway franchises.
If the administration really wanted to help small businesses, it would prohibit lobbying in Washington D.C. and every state capitol in the nation.
Why doesn't the administration at least give lip service to such initiatives? It may be because people are not agitating for them, on a sufficiently wide scale, but I cannot believe that. The real reason is Broadway Market Video, and most other small businesses cannot afford to contribute to campaign coffers, and politicians are not going to change a system that elected them.
In any event, at least some business owners can still run a business by putting a better product to market and making the transacting of business just as enjoyable as the product itself.
Sunday, August 20, 2006
The Culture of Ants and Bees
Americans are taking fewer vacation days per year, which means they are working more hours than previously studied periods. Part of the problem is that employers give fewer benefits to their employees in the ever continuing effort not to spread the wealth. Publicly traded corporations, and those organization that wish to become publicly traded are forced to cut expenses, and when they cannot eliminate the jobs, outsource them to prison inmates, or send them overseas, they simply squeeze more out of them.
Workers and professionals, those who are lucky enough to have jobs, never get a break. This speaks volumes about our values. We do not value people and we have allowed our culture and many others around the world, to create institutions that benefit very few people.
People are losing what little freedom they had in their lives. Employers, and by that I mean any employer that wants to be competitive in the global marketplace cannot treat people as people, but as assets and commodities. For all the talk about a culture of life, our actions speak much louder. It is easy to sign a law to save one person, or veto a stem cell funding bill that has wide popular support, to carry on the illusion. In reality, we do not even have the decency to give people a paid vacation for even a paltry two week period. This is half what many European countries give.
However, perhaps it falls on the employees themselves to demand it. It is ironic that people who work all they in order to acquire things that are superficial and of little long term value. And we think ants and bees are communists! In many ways their motivations are much more admirable. Such an insatiable drive to work may have some value if we actually worked for a goal that advanced the universal good. Increasing profits for Boeing and Microsoft tends not to serve the universal good as much as it lines the pockets of the already ultra wealthy. It is a vicious cycle, and it will continue until people are able to recognize it as such. Only then, will we begin to do something about it.
Workers and professionals, those who are lucky enough to have jobs, never get a break. This speaks volumes about our values. We do not value people and we have allowed our culture and many others around the world, to create institutions that benefit very few people.
People are losing what little freedom they had in their lives. Employers, and by that I mean any employer that wants to be competitive in the global marketplace cannot treat people as people, but as assets and commodities. For all the talk about a culture of life, our actions speak much louder. It is easy to sign a law to save one person, or veto a stem cell funding bill that has wide popular support, to carry on the illusion. In reality, we do not even have the decency to give people a paid vacation for even a paltry two week period. This is half what many European countries give.
However, perhaps it falls on the employees themselves to demand it. It is ironic that people who work all they in order to acquire things that are superficial and of little long term value. And we think ants and bees are communists! In many ways their motivations are much more admirable. Such an insatiable drive to work may have some value if we actually worked for a goal that advanced the universal good. Increasing profits for Boeing and Microsoft tends not to serve the universal good as much as it lines the pockets of the already ultra wealthy. It is a vicious cycle, and it will continue until people are able to recognize it as such. Only then, will we begin to do something about it.
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
Monday, August 07, 2006
Financial Times with the real reasons
As usual, the financial media outlets provide most of the answers to the honest questions people have about U.S. policy. The Financial Times has a real gem here.
The article contains a response of Russian officials to U.S. sanctions against two companies who allegedly dealt weapons to Iran. This snippet is sufficient:
"The US decision could further worsen relations with Russia, which have cooled as the Bush administration has stepped up its rhetoric over the Putin administration’s democratic record."
It is difficult not to notice the rhetoric from the Bush Administration toward the Russian Federation. Why VP Cheney would travel to Moscow and accuse Putin of doing exactly what he himself was doing in the United States? After the situation in Iran started heating up, you can easily put the two together. Iran buys weapons from Russia through its state export company, just like everyone else does who cannot buy them from the United States, and U.S. policy is regime change in Iran. Therefore, until Russia and Iran begins to take orders from the U.S., they will face the prospect of ever increasing squeeze tactics. The last paragraph at least gives some attention to the obvious:
"Michael McFaul, a Russia specialist at Stanford University, said: “The fact that they are doing this now is probably in response to the problems in the Middle East. The timing is not coincidental.”
In any case, this is a good chance to reiterate that most answers can be found in the media reports if you look for them.
The article contains a response of Russian officials to U.S. sanctions against two companies who allegedly dealt weapons to Iran. This snippet is sufficient:
"The US decision could further worsen relations with Russia, which have cooled as the Bush administration has stepped up its rhetoric over the Putin administration’s democratic record."
It is difficult not to notice the rhetoric from the Bush Administration toward the Russian Federation. Why VP Cheney would travel to Moscow and accuse Putin of doing exactly what he himself was doing in the United States? After the situation in Iran started heating up, you can easily put the two together. Iran buys weapons from Russia through its state export company, just like everyone else does who cannot buy them from the United States, and U.S. policy is regime change in Iran. Therefore, until Russia and Iran begins to take orders from the U.S., they will face the prospect of ever increasing squeeze tactics. The last paragraph at least gives some attention to the obvious:
"Michael McFaul, a Russia specialist at Stanford University, said: “The fact that they are doing this now is probably in response to the problems in the Middle East. The timing is not coincidental.”
In any case, this is a good chance to reiterate that most answers can be found in the media reports if you look for them.
Sunday, August 06, 2006
Results of Sanctions
Sanctions tend to fail as a diplomatic tool for the same reason aerial bombing usually fails. As Israel is again discovering in Lebanon, the infliction of indiscriminate suffering tends to turn a populace against the proximate cause of its devastation, not the underlying causes.
The entire article is here.
The entire article is here.
Blue Angels GO HOME
Als das Kind, Kind war...
And I suppose I loved the Blue Angels. This weekend, the city is enjoying Seafair which for some reason brings the Blue Angels to town. Aside from scaring the hell out of my dog, they trick little kids into thinking an air force enlistment will lead to flying jets. They serve no purpose except PR and we pay for it.
Seafair is a great weekend, and someday, the organizers will realize that it will be even better without a bunch of jets angering up the blood by flying in formation.
And I suppose I loved the Blue Angels. This weekend, the city is enjoying Seafair which for some reason brings the Blue Angels to town. Aside from scaring the hell out of my dog, they trick little kids into thinking an air force enlistment will lead to flying jets. They serve no purpose except PR and we pay for it.
Seafair is a great weekend, and someday, the organizers will realize that it will be even better without a bunch of jets angering up the blood by flying in formation.
Worth of Souls
One of the lessons that you learn as a Mormon is the story of Nephi and Laben, which is featured relatively soon in the first section of the Book of Mormon. In short, Laben had something Nephi needed. In order to get that, Nephi infiltrated Laben’s palace, stole a drunken Laben’s sword, and killed Laben with it. Nephi did this because God told him to do so because it is better for one man to die than an entire nation to dwindle in disbelief.
I am many years removed from Mormonism and the details of how a scholar would interpret this no longer concern me. However, I think it illustrates how many people feel about those they deem unworthy or superfluous. As discussed so well here, that may or may not have something to do with how our government feels people generally. I am not talking about rich people or poor people, but simply the process of devaluing life (except zygotes), to cannon fodder. If we want to get anywhere, we need to start with basic human rights for everyone. As long as accept rationalization for unequal treatment, we will fail at every other effort.
I am many years removed from Mormonism and the details of how a scholar would interpret this no longer concern me. However, I think it illustrates how many people feel about those they deem unworthy or superfluous. As discussed so well here, that may or may not have something to do with how our government feels people generally. I am not talking about rich people or poor people, but simply the process of devaluing life (except zygotes), to cannon fodder. If we want to get anywhere, we need to start with basic human rights for everyone. As long as accept rationalization for unequal treatment, we will fail at every other effort.
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
Green
This article is worth a read. To get you started:
Unfortunately, the current climate crisis has in large part been caused by our sacred notions corporate governance (i.e. that owners investment supersedes any other consideration). It is refreshing to note that the solution to this problem may actually lie in the same paradigm. I am not yet convinced, but if people can maximize the investment of the owners by buidling green, then there may yet be some hope. Of course, it will take a lot more than green buidling practices, but at least it may contribute to the solution instead of the problem.
If you doubt that this is only possible in foreign countries, have a look at this, from the reddest state of our fair nation.
That's one of the key results of the white paper Assessing the Value of sustainable, presented at a sustainability forum in Melbourne by Jones Lang LaSalle national director of sustainability and engineering services, Chris Wallbank.
"Commercial outcomes are beginning to drive the 'greening' of Australian office property as building owners seek to drive higher levels of efficiency from their property portfolios," he said.
Unfortunately, the current climate crisis has in large part been caused by our sacred notions corporate governance (i.e. that owners investment supersedes any other consideration). It is refreshing to note that the solution to this problem may actually lie in the same paradigm. I am not yet convinced, but if people can maximize the investment of the owners by buidling green, then there may yet be some hope. Of course, it will take a lot more than green buidling practices, but at least it may contribute to the solution instead of the problem.
If you doubt that this is only possible in foreign countries, have a look at this, from the reddest state of our fair nation.
Monday, July 31, 2006
Breakfast
It is extremely interesting at times to take a step back, or a long break, just to take in a larger view of the world.
It is the last day of July.
Our presence in Iraq appears no less likely to conclude than it did three months ago despite the escalation of violence.
Israel is in southern Lebanon.
The highest courts in both New York, and Washington have declined to extend basic civil rights to those whose sexual practices do not result children.
This part of the country has just escaped from a crippling heat wave that is in no way related to worldwide temperature increases as a result of people burning fossil fuels.
These are just some of the events that have developed over the last few months. None of them are very encouraging. However, it is also nice to witness many of the campaigns for seats in the House and Senate. It is extremely encouraging to see that people are actually able to get involved and call their elected representatives to account in the two or three months before they again disappear in Washington D.C. only to return to their old ways.
At least during the next few months, people have a chance to contribute to the dialogue.
It is the last day of July.
Our presence in Iraq appears no less likely to conclude than it did three months ago despite the escalation of violence.
Israel is in southern Lebanon.
The highest courts in both New York, and Washington have declined to extend basic civil rights to those whose sexual practices do not result children.
This part of the country has just escaped from a crippling heat wave that is in no way related to worldwide temperature increases as a result of people burning fossil fuels.
These are just some of the events that have developed over the last few months. None of them are very encouraging. However, it is also nice to witness many of the campaigns for seats in the House and Senate. It is extremely encouraging to see that people are actually able to get involved and call their elected representatives to account in the two or three months before they again disappear in Washington D.C. only to return to their old ways.
At least during the next few months, people have a chance to contribute to the dialogue.
Monday, May 08, 2006
Absurdity without Bounds
The Financial Times' take on Cheney's remarks is timeless. In particular, this line struck me:
I don't know that any one in the entire world that has used energy policy for political ends more so than Cheney. It is absurd that he would accuse anyone else of those actions when he wrote the book on restricting rights to further his personal and political gains.
Furthermore, what in the world has the U.S. to gain by making comments like that? Is it really to begin another cold war so that the Neo-Cons can return to the good old days of gross military expenditures to counter the ubiquitous threat of the Russians? It would not surprise me. Of course, our military expenditures increased after the fall of the Soviet Union, but I doubt such a technicality would inhibit BushCo from increasing them again at the onset of Cold War II: Attack of the Clones.
"Mr Cheney last Thursday accused Russia not just of using energy policy for
political ends, but of restricting citizens’ rights."
I don't know that any one in the entire world that has used energy policy for political ends more so than Cheney. It is absurd that he would accuse anyone else of those actions when he wrote the book on restricting rights to further his personal and political gains.
Furthermore, what in the world has the U.S. to gain by making comments like that? Is it really to begin another cold war so that the Neo-Cons can return to the good old days of gross military expenditures to counter the ubiquitous threat of the Russians? It would not surprise me. Of course, our military expenditures increased after the fall of the Soviet Union, but I doubt such a technicality would inhibit BushCo from increasing them again at the onset of Cold War II: Attack of the Clones.
Sunday, May 07, 2006
Your "liberal" media
This is the kind of thing that drives me crazy. Not only is it extremely childish and unprofessional, but people fall for it, so it continues to happen.
Compare these two articles about the senatorial race in Washington. First, an article about Cantwell. Next, one about McGavick looking to unseat Senator Cantwell.
No one is going to read the tripe the Times churns out anyway, but they will notice the photos. Mike's appears to be at his second grade best, but Cantwell's seems a little off. Subtle but effective. Indeed, it's nice to see the candidates run on the issues, and it's even better to see the press attempting to tease out the issues so that the public can easily participate in the process.
I was reading the paper and noticed the photo of Cantwell. I assumed the most recent article about Mike would be in similar fashion. Boy did I assume too much. Liberal media, my ass.
Compare these two articles about the senatorial race in Washington. First, an article about Cantwell. Next, one about McGavick looking to unseat Senator Cantwell.
No one is going to read the tripe the Times churns out anyway, but they will notice the photos. Mike's appears to be at his second grade best, but Cantwell's seems a little off. Subtle but effective. Indeed, it's nice to see the candidates run on the issues, and it's even better to see the press attempting to tease out the issues so that the public can easily participate in the process.
I was reading the paper and noticed the photo of Cantwell. I assumed the most recent article about Mike would be in similar fashion. Boy did I assume too much. Liberal media, my ass.
Sunday, April 30, 2006
Another Energy Indepedance Article
Here's another in an already huge pile of articles that discuss the future of energy in the United States.
The future is not in Iraq either.
The future is not in Iraq either.
Another Energy Indepedance Article
Here's another in an already huge pile of articles that discuss the future of energy in the United States.
The future is not in Iraq either.
The future is not in Iraq either.
$3.00 and Rising
In the couple of weeks since I have posted, gas prices have surged higher, with no end in sight. Since I do not own a car, I have not trouble with the price at the pump. In fact, I sort of get a grim sense of satisfaction every time I see an SUV drive by. It is difficult to get too excited about ever-increasing fuel prices, one positive effect might be that people will decrease their use of environmentally unfriendly vehicles. As fuel prices increase, so will the efforts to develop more reasonable energy sources. I do not think it is necessary to describe the possible reverberations throughout society and foreign policy as a result.
In the meantime, every other consumer product, that depends on transportation from elsewhere, will increase in price. That includes your groceries. Therefore, the products produced locally will finally be lower in priced than the products produced elsewhere including in free trade zones around the world. It may eventually have the effect of mitigating the advantages that publicly-traded multinational corporations have over your local corner grocer. I am not counting on it, but I will keep walking to my farmers market for my food.
In the meantime, every other consumer product, that depends on transportation from elsewhere, will increase in price. That includes your groceries. Therefore, the products produced locally will finally be lower in priced than the products produced elsewhere including in free trade zones around the world. It may eventually have the effect of mitigating the advantages that publicly-traded multinational corporations have over your local corner grocer. I am not counting on it, but I will keep walking to my farmers market for my food.
Wednesday, April 19, 2006
Once More Unto the Breach…
There's one here, and another one here. Maybe the media outlets, generally speaking, are starting to realize that it's popular, and therefore, profitable to criticize GWB.
I especially enjoyed the Rolling Stone's article. After the U.S. invasion of Iraq, GWB was riding the wave of high popularity and his legions of Christy followers were quite happy to compare GWB to Abraham Lincoln and other of the more famous U.S. presidents. I never understood the Abe Lincoln comparison in particular. Abe was born in the largely rural frontier to a father who could not spell his name. Abe went on to immortality. GWB was born to wealthy parents in New Haven, CT while his parents were attending the most prestigious university in the country. Sounds like blue blood in every sense of the world. However, his carefully developed twang easily gives rise to the thought that he is just like one of us; a guy we would like to have a beer with after a long day at the site.
Maybe I am wrong and GWB will go on to immortality. Then the story might be different. Imagine a hypothetical Wikipedia article in 2059:
"...GWB was born on the hardscrabble farms on Western Texas. As a young child, he was forced to raise his younger brothers and sisters because his father was out defending the United States of America from communism While GWB grew up making his presence in the household a rare event. They were never the wealthiest, but they made ends meet.
GWB's hard work allowed him to attend Yale University where he earned C's because he was discriminated against by the radical left academic elements of one of the nation's liberal universities. His red state roots, and love of hard work allowed him to beat down his classmates in clever debate after clever debate. The debate skills he refined at the most prestigious university in the country allowed him to hold his own when he entered business and politics despite his humble roots..."
Well, you get the idea. Hopefully, people will begin to accept things with criticism from here on out. If so, maybe people like GWB will not win elections and serve in public office. Let them run oil companies into bankruptcy and preside over mediocre baseball teams, preferably not mine. Of course, GWB, to his credit, did say it best: "History. We won't know," he told the journalist Bob Woodward in 2003. "We'll all be dead."
I especially enjoyed the Rolling Stone's article. After the U.S. invasion of Iraq, GWB was riding the wave of high popularity and his legions of Christy followers were quite happy to compare GWB to Abraham Lincoln and other of the more famous U.S. presidents. I never understood the Abe Lincoln comparison in particular. Abe was born in the largely rural frontier to a father who could not spell his name. Abe went on to immortality. GWB was born to wealthy parents in New Haven, CT while his parents were attending the most prestigious university in the country. Sounds like blue blood in every sense of the world. However, his carefully developed twang easily gives rise to the thought that he is just like one of us; a guy we would like to have a beer with after a long day at the site.
Maybe I am wrong and GWB will go on to immortality. Then the story might be different. Imagine a hypothetical Wikipedia article in 2059:
"...GWB was born on the hardscrabble farms on Western Texas. As a young child, he was forced to raise his younger brothers and sisters because his father was out defending the United States of America from communism While GWB grew up making his presence in the household a rare event. They were never the wealthiest, but they made ends meet.
GWB's hard work allowed him to attend Yale University where he earned C's because he was discriminated against by the radical left academic elements of one of the nation's liberal universities. His red state roots, and love of hard work allowed him to beat down his classmates in clever debate after clever debate. The debate skills he refined at the most prestigious university in the country allowed him to hold his own when he entered business and politics despite his humble roots..."
Well, you get the idea. Hopefully, people will begin to accept things with criticism from here on out. If so, maybe people like GWB will not win elections and serve in public office. Let them run oil companies into bankruptcy and preside over mediocre baseball teams, preferably not mine. Of course, GWB, to his credit, did say it best: "History. We won't know," he told the journalist Bob Woodward in 2003. "We'll all be dead."
The Corporation Administration
GWB and his administration often relied on his business credentials to establish his credibility when he came into the political scene first as governor and later as president. Many viewed this as a good thing. His performance since then has cast doubt not on the corporate tactics in leadership positions, but rather on his own incompetence as a leader.
I believe it is perfectly logical that he could have been a very effective leader in the corporate world. The problem may not be his incompetence, his failure as a leader may actually be more demonstrative of the complete ineffectiveness of corporate leadership tactics.
When I use the term, corporate leadership tactics, I mean a tactic of leadership that demands extensive, and maybe even complete, control over the organization. Essentially, we are talking about a totalitarian or authoritarian form of leadership, one in which there are very few meaningful checks on a leader's authority. That is equivalent to the powers of a CEO of a publicly traded corporation. Now, I don't want excessively generalize. Certainly, the board of directors could remove a CEO, certainly the shareholders could sue the CEO on behalf of the corporation. These things happen, but they seldom happen enough to create any meaningful participation for those who are affected by a corporation's actions (community members, consumers, employees, vendors, subcontractors).
It is likely that we have all done time working for a corporation. I have worked in a few and they were authoritarian from the highest to the lowest level. Your boss's will is the law and dissent is rarely tolerated. Every now and then one will have the chance to work for a manager who is effective and facilitates the professional development of his or her staff, but that is never as likely to happen as the opposite possibility. As a result, everyone in the organization suffers, and as a result, the organization suffers.
Therefore, it is quite surprising that anyone should have expected anything but the current situation in Washington D.C. GWB runs his government like a corporation and therefore, we should expect corporate results. Again, most of us have experienced the inefficient, cutthroat, inhumane environment of the corporate entity. That is a world where the PR departments constantly attempt to ignore reality, the CEO makes speeches to crowds of roaring shareholders, and where profits supersede any other consideration. Indeed, GWB is our corporate president, and we have been appropriately rewarded under his leadership.
I believe it is perfectly logical that he could have been a very effective leader in the corporate world. The problem may not be his incompetence, his failure as a leader may actually be more demonstrative of the complete ineffectiveness of corporate leadership tactics.
When I use the term, corporate leadership tactics, I mean a tactic of leadership that demands extensive, and maybe even complete, control over the organization. Essentially, we are talking about a totalitarian or authoritarian form of leadership, one in which there are very few meaningful checks on a leader's authority. That is equivalent to the powers of a CEO of a publicly traded corporation. Now, I don't want excessively generalize. Certainly, the board of directors could remove a CEO, certainly the shareholders could sue the CEO on behalf of the corporation. These things happen, but they seldom happen enough to create any meaningful participation for those who are affected by a corporation's actions (community members, consumers, employees, vendors, subcontractors).
It is likely that we have all done time working for a corporation. I have worked in a few and they were authoritarian from the highest to the lowest level. Your boss's will is the law and dissent is rarely tolerated. Every now and then one will have the chance to work for a manager who is effective and facilitates the professional development of his or her staff, but that is never as likely to happen as the opposite possibility. As a result, everyone in the organization suffers, and as a result, the organization suffers.
Therefore, it is quite surprising that anyone should have expected anything but the current situation in Washington D.C. GWB runs his government like a corporation and therefore, we should expect corporate results. Again, most of us have experienced the inefficient, cutthroat, inhumane environment of the corporate entity. That is a world where the PR departments constantly attempt to ignore reality, the CEO makes speeches to crowds of roaring shareholders, and where profits supersede any other consideration. Indeed, GWB is our corporate president, and we have been appropriately rewarded under his leadership.
Local Partisianship
Fewer posts this month. My excuse is I have spent too much time writing angry letters to the local paper's editors.
I received a call this afternoon from one to print this piece, but because I had submitted it to other papers, this one refused to run it. Therefore, the only light of day it will ever see is in this little corner of cyberspace. Enjoy:
The Washington Post ran an article this week about Senator Ted Steven's recent visit to our state. Stevens claimed politics were not on the agenda but we remember Steven's threats to come pay a visit to Senator Cantwell for standing up to his relentless attempts to open up ANWR. We know Stevens is moonlighting in Washington because he wants a Senator who will be a rubber stamp for the GOP leadership regardless of the desires of the people of Washington. Mike McGavick's campaign may weave a tale of a candidate who will not be a yes man for President Bush; but all we need see is VP Cheney's recent visit to shake the corporate money tree already overflowing with contributions from big oil and insurance.
The sooner the people of Washington see through Mike McGavik, the better for the state and the nation. The State of Washington, like every other state, should be attempting to rid themselves of malignant GOP Senate leadership, not adding to its ranks. One need only ask a simple question about the McGavik campaign: who you are you going to believe?
I received a call this afternoon from one to print this piece, but because I had submitted it to other papers, this one refused to run it. Therefore, the only light of day it will ever see is in this little corner of cyberspace. Enjoy:
The Washington Post ran an article this week about Senator Ted Steven's recent visit to our state. Stevens claimed politics were not on the agenda but we remember Steven's threats to come pay a visit to Senator Cantwell for standing up to his relentless attempts to open up ANWR. We know Stevens is moonlighting in Washington because he wants a Senator who will be a rubber stamp for the GOP leadership regardless of the desires of the people of Washington. Mike McGavick's campaign may weave a tale of a candidate who will not be a yes man for President Bush; but all we need see is VP Cheney's recent visit to shake the corporate money tree already overflowing with contributions from big oil and insurance.
The sooner the people of Washington see through Mike McGavik, the better for the state and the nation. The State of Washington, like every other state, should be attempting to rid themselves of malignant GOP Senate leadership, not adding to its ranks. One need only ask a simple question about the McGavik campaign: who you are you going to believe?
Friday, April 07, 2006
Tuesday, April 04, 2006
Independence from Iraq
Pieces like this one inspire me.
It is unpopular to criticize the American way of life. That does not sell newspapers. It does not make people feel good about themselves. I find that a very poor excuse. Since when should people feel good about inappropriate and maybe even irresponsible behavior?
We are in Iraq because at some level of consciousness, people decided that their way of life in the United States, supersedes the interests, and maybe even necessities of other people. Of course, that dynamic could not exist without the might of our military ready to back it up.
Under effective leadership, September 11, 2001 might have served as strong indication that our way of life is not sustainable, that it can only survive if we sacrifice the principles of democracy in this country, and other countries sacrifice their own existence.
We do not operate in a vacuum. Our lifestyle, firing on the engines of consumption, convenience, conformity, and consumerism in general, impacts the lives of people in locations far and near. Our weapons of mass consumption cause unrest, repression, turmoil and at the worst of times, terrorism on our own soil.
Our U.S. Government really does represent that which we have let them know time after time is our real desire--consumerism. As long as that rules, we can expect more of the same from our government.
I'll leave you with one quick illustration. Imagine that people tired of the occupation in Iraq just stopped going to work until the occupation ended. Now, assuming that everyone who disagrees with GWB's leadership in Iraq joins in the "stay at home strike," that might mean anywhere from 50-65% of the workforce absent. That means a lot of lost money for employers. Why would this never happen? It is not because corporations and our government would not bend. It is because people, deeply in debt and enslaved to their manufactured desires, would never be able to afford the time off.
It is unpopular to criticize the American way of life. That does not sell newspapers. It does not make people feel good about themselves. I find that a very poor excuse. Since when should people feel good about inappropriate and maybe even irresponsible behavior?
We are in Iraq because at some level of consciousness, people decided that their way of life in the United States, supersedes the interests, and maybe even necessities of other people. Of course, that dynamic could not exist without the might of our military ready to back it up.
Under effective leadership, September 11, 2001 might have served as strong indication that our way of life is not sustainable, that it can only survive if we sacrifice the principles of democracy in this country, and other countries sacrifice their own existence.
We do not operate in a vacuum. Our lifestyle, firing on the engines of consumption, convenience, conformity, and consumerism in general, impacts the lives of people in locations far and near. Our weapons of mass consumption cause unrest, repression, turmoil and at the worst of times, terrorism on our own soil.
Our U.S. Government really does represent that which we have let them know time after time is our real desire--consumerism. As long as that rules, we can expect more of the same from our government.
I'll leave you with one quick illustration. Imagine that people tired of the occupation in Iraq just stopped going to work until the occupation ended. Now, assuming that everyone who disagrees with GWB's leadership in Iraq joins in the "stay at home strike," that might mean anywhere from 50-65% of the workforce absent. That means a lot of lost money for employers. Why would this never happen? It is not because corporations and our government would not bend. It is because people, deeply in debt and enslaved to their manufactured desires, would never be able to afford the time off.
Energy and Local Development
One of the more exciting and unpredictable aspects of the flowering green energy movement is that it is not implemented from above, but developing from below. This is not a movement that multi-national energy corporations (MNC) are trying to sell to consumers. This is consumers telling MNC's that they want green energy.
As you can see here and here, this is a movement that poeple are largely propelling on their local level. Eventually, the MNC's will figure out how to use these movements to maximize the investment of their shareholders. When that happens, renewable energy sources will be much less democratic. However, in this case, I can let it slide I suppose. If they were doing good things, I would be much less concerned about the lack of democratic governance in them.
As you can see here and here, this is a movement that poeple are largely propelling on their local level. Eventually, the MNC's will figure out how to use these movements to maximize the investment of their shareholders. When that happens, renewable energy sources will be much less democratic. However, in this case, I can let it slide I suppose. If they were doing good things, I would be much less concerned about the lack of democratic governance in them.
Capitol Hill, Seattle, USA
Capitol Hill was the setting of a shooting rampage one and a half weeks ago. It occurred on Republican Street early on a Saturday morning. I lived on Republican Street (though at the other end of it.) Capitol Hill is my neighborhood; it is the one in which I choose to live, and the one in which I plan to work for the foreseeable future. When something like this happens, it reverberates throughout the community in ways that are inexplicable and at this point, unpredictable. There is very little that I can say that has not already been repeated widely.
In the film, Fog of War, Robert McNamara, while recounting one of his more difficult moments in the Deprtment of Defense paraphrased another's words, "humans must stop killing other humans." I don't know anyone who would disagree with such a simple statement. I believe it has universal applications.
I think it applies far beyond our neighborhood. It is unacceptable that one could walk into a house full of people and discharge firearms. It is equally unacceptable that another country should invade another country and discharge the military might. People are full of notions and ideals of military glory deployed for righteous reasons. I believe that it is impossible to reach righteous ends using wicked means. In other words, one cannot do evil in order to bring about good. To apply this premise directly, we cannot rid the world of terror by occupying another country, bombing civilians, and torturing suspects. We cannot build democracy through these activities either.
I have little doubt that the means through which nations interact have a way of reverberating through the populations of all countries. If we expect people to behave civilly toward each other, we should demand the same from our leaders. If it is unacceptable to destroy lives individually, it should be equally so for countries. The rule of law must apply at all levels. If one person is above it, then it does not exist at all.
Humans indeed must stop killing other human beings. That goes for house parties in Capitol Hill, Seattle, just as much as it does for any other person, in any other position, in any other country in the world.
In the film, Fog of War, Robert McNamara, while recounting one of his more difficult moments in the Deprtment of Defense paraphrased another's words, "humans must stop killing other humans." I don't know anyone who would disagree with such a simple statement. I believe it has universal applications.
I think it applies far beyond our neighborhood. It is unacceptable that one could walk into a house full of people and discharge firearms. It is equally unacceptable that another country should invade another country and discharge the military might. People are full of notions and ideals of military glory deployed for righteous reasons. I believe that it is impossible to reach righteous ends using wicked means. In other words, one cannot do evil in order to bring about good. To apply this premise directly, we cannot rid the world of terror by occupying another country, bombing civilians, and torturing suspects. We cannot build democracy through these activities either.
I have little doubt that the means through which nations interact have a way of reverberating through the populations of all countries. If we expect people to behave civilly toward each other, we should demand the same from our leaders. If it is unacceptable to destroy lives individually, it should be equally so for countries. The rule of law must apply at all levels. If one person is above it, then it does not exist at all.
Humans indeed must stop killing other human beings. That goes for house parties in Capitol Hill, Seattle, just as much as it does for any other person, in any other position, in any other country in the world.
Sketches of Russian History III: The Revolution of 1905
Continuing with some of the strains of our last installment, I would like turn our attention to the Imperialist Russia during the reign of Nicholas II. Note that he was the last Czar to rule Russia, the last of a 300 year dynasty; his rule was the swan song of autocracy in Europe. (Symbolically speaking of course, the German and Austrian monarchies outlived Nicholas'.) Nicholas was the son of a more capable politician and ruler. He was the son of a stronger man, although his father was nothing to write home about. He was ill-equipped mentally and intellectually to deal with Russia's endless problems. He felt his faith in god and his belief that god had endowed him with authority to rule would carry him through the most tumultuous times. (Reference my last post for more on historical similarities. I cringe when GWB talks about god watching over this country.)
In 1904, Russia became entangled in the conflict now known as the Russo-Japanese War. Though Russia was able to send Napoleon back to France with his tail between his legs, she was unable to subjugate Japan largely because of the logistical problem of sending troops through 12 time zones on a primitive rail system. To make matters worse, the Russian people were not interested in this conflict because they had little to gain from victory and much to lose (social and political reform and indeed the lives their children) in defeat. Lenin was able to call this conflict one between imperialist powers grabbing more resources within their disputed spheres of influence.
Be that as it may, our favorite son pressed forward in war. The political and social liberals of the day (those who favored a constitutional monarchy and basic civil rights) unleashed what they called a banquet campaign. The movement was appropriately named as it was a political meeting with a big meal. People got together, ate, drank vodka, and decided to protest against the actions of the government. Their demands were not unreasonable; they were the same which had existed in almost every other country in Europe enjoyed.
The story of course does not end well. The banquet campaign enticed people to take action by peacefully marching to the Czar's palace in St. Petersburg where the Czar's guard shot them down though they were unarmed and had no apparent inclination toward violence. Perhaps the greatest beneficiaries of the Czar's shortsightedness were the radical movements on the left led by Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, and the Social Revolutionaries. This turmoil produced Lenin, the Soviet Union, Stalin, one of the more repressive dictators in history.
I am always struck by this moment in Russian history because it represented so many possibilities, if one can freeze the clock for a few seconds and speculate. Had the Czar not fired, had he apologized, or conceded that his empire should be based around human rights instead of authoritarian principles, maybe the moderates would have taken over and there would never have been a Soviet Union. Each faction's path would have been dramatically different and we can hardly imagine what might have been. For every event like this, there are so many more that have been erased from history.
I suppose there are just as many conclusions that one can draw. I wonder how many of these individuals felt they were right, acting as though history will someday vindicate them. Most of them would not have bet their lives had they not felt so. The one guiding principle that they lacked was the conviction that human beings should be valued higher than the revolution, higher than the integrity of the monarchy, and higher than any merchant's holdings. Because they fought for something else, Russia experienced another 100 years of terror, turmoil, and instability. These effects were not limited to inside the borders of Russia either.
That path was not pre-ordained. It was the collective errors of countless named and unnamed individuals. As we know well, rationality will not save us--it is almost always absent in the first place.
In 1904, Russia became entangled in the conflict now known as the Russo-Japanese War. Though Russia was able to send Napoleon back to France with his tail between his legs, she was unable to subjugate Japan largely because of the logistical problem of sending troops through 12 time zones on a primitive rail system. To make matters worse, the Russian people were not interested in this conflict because they had little to gain from victory and much to lose (social and political reform and indeed the lives their children) in defeat. Lenin was able to call this conflict one between imperialist powers grabbing more resources within their disputed spheres of influence.
Be that as it may, our favorite son pressed forward in war. The political and social liberals of the day (those who favored a constitutional monarchy and basic civil rights) unleashed what they called a banquet campaign. The movement was appropriately named as it was a political meeting with a big meal. People got together, ate, drank vodka, and decided to protest against the actions of the government. Their demands were not unreasonable; they were the same which had existed in almost every other country in Europe enjoyed.
The story of course does not end well. The banquet campaign enticed people to take action by peacefully marching to the Czar's palace in St. Petersburg where the Czar's guard shot them down though they were unarmed and had no apparent inclination toward violence. Perhaps the greatest beneficiaries of the Czar's shortsightedness were the radical movements on the left led by Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, and the Social Revolutionaries. This turmoil produced Lenin, the Soviet Union, Stalin, one of the more repressive dictators in history.
I am always struck by this moment in Russian history because it represented so many possibilities, if one can freeze the clock for a few seconds and speculate. Had the Czar not fired, had he apologized, or conceded that his empire should be based around human rights instead of authoritarian principles, maybe the moderates would have taken over and there would never have been a Soviet Union. Each faction's path would have been dramatically different and we can hardly imagine what might have been. For every event like this, there are so many more that have been erased from history.
I suppose there are just as many conclusions that one can draw. I wonder how many of these individuals felt they were right, acting as though history will someday vindicate them. Most of them would not have bet their lives had they not felt so. The one guiding principle that they lacked was the conviction that human beings should be valued higher than the revolution, higher than the integrity of the monarchy, and higher than any merchant's holdings. Because they fought for something else, Russia experienced another 100 years of terror, turmoil, and instability. These effects were not limited to inside the borders of Russia either.
That path was not pre-ordained. It was the collective errors of countless named and unnamed individuals. As we know well, rationality will not save us--it is almost always absent in the first place.
Sketches of Russian History II: Alexander III's counter-reforms
Alexander's father, the aptly named Alexander II, was the man who freed the serfs. Alexander III however, did not believe in his father's reforms, and rather felt that they undermined his and his family's authority.
Alexander was strongly influence by Constantine Pobedonostsev. As you can see from his political briefs, he felt that reforms were antithetical to the development of Russia. He distrusted education and felt that the less the better. Social programs were wasteful because the individual was insignificant except to serve the purpose of the state which was divinely granted the Czar. Further, once people become aware, through education, of a way, Constantine feared that they would contribute to societal conflict. Culture and art, not to mention welfare programs have little or no value to the Czar. According to the supporters of this policy, that would lead to less order not more.
I found Pobedonostsev interesting for many reasons. Perhaps most of all, he understood and attempted to implement programs, with an accompanying ideology, that would most likely keep the Czar in power. The less the people know, the better.
As I am often tempted to do, I recognize parallels between this ideology and those that run in conservative circles today. The debt, the war, the fear mongering all allow GWB to cut social programs. However, as most realize, that does not decrease spending. GWB is spending more than ever on the military, or should I say, the administration gives money once used for social programs to his friends in defense firms whether we need their products or not. That in turn, allows power and money to be consolidated in fewer individuals. I find it particularly worrisome to realize that the same ideology employed 150 years ago to keep power, are used today to acquire more of it.
The losers in this game are the same as those in the past: the people, the individual, and the institution of democracy.
In our day, a mechanism exists to regain some semblance of democracy in this country. That mechanism is participation--active participation in the political process.
Alexander was strongly influence by Constantine Pobedonostsev. As you can see from his political briefs, he felt that reforms were antithetical to the development of Russia. He distrusted education and felt that the less the better. Social programs were wasteful because the individual was insignificant except to serve the purpose of the state which was divinely granted the Czar. Further, once people become aware, through education, of a way, Constantine feared that they would contribute to societal conflict. Culture and art, not to mention welfare programs have little or no value to the Czar. According to the supporters of this policy, that would lead to less order not more.
I found Pobedonostsev interesting for many reasons. Perhaps most of all, he understood and attempted to implement programs, with an accompanying ideology, that would most likely keep the Czar in power. The less the people know, the better.
As I am often tempted to do, I recognize parallels between this ideology and those that run in conservative circles today. The debt, the war, the fear mongering all allow GWB to cut social programs. However, as most realize, that does not decrease spending. GWB is spending more than ever on the military, or should I say, the administration gives money once used for social programs to his friends in defense firms whether we need their products or not. That in turn, allows power and money to be consolidated in fewer individuals. I find it particularly worrisome to realize that the same ideology employed 150 years ago to keep power, are used today to acquire more of it.
The losers in this game are the same as those in the past: the people, the individual, and the institution of democracy.
In our day, a mechanism exists to regain some semblance of democracy in this country. That mechanism is participation--active participation in the political process.
Sketches of Russian History I: Russian Populism (Narodnichestvo)
One of my guiltiest pleasures is reading completely worthless, mindless, and boring histories of a country whose name I recognize. Last up was a short history of Russia. While you really cannot gain anything in a survey beyond a few generalized statements about things which the author is familiar, you can get a feel for historical developments within the larger historical context.
I found this most interesting in the second half of the 19th century in Russia. To put it in context, Russia had maintained the institution of slavery for some time. It wasn't until the 1860's that serfdom was abolished. That action, of course, was the greatest change in Russian society in century. It signaled the end of the old aristocracy that Chekhov and Turgenev so vividly described. It also allowed for the new peasant class to be politicized or manipulated.
The first group to attempt to do so was the populists led, in spirit at least, by N. K. Mikhalovsky and M. A. Bukanin. Their followers adhered to a set of principles that was a form of populism wherein the commune (or mir) was the spiritual center of the Russian agrarian society. Therefore, those closest to it, the Russian peasants, were to propel the country into a true democratically socialist state. The populists believed that when the peasants bought in, the country could by-pass capitalism and rocket toward socialism.
So off they went into the country to get involved and indoctrinate the peasants. The effort failed miserably. The peasants were suspicious of the city-dwellers and in many cases, reported them to the police. The agitators were either imprisoned or returned to the cities for plan B.
History may repeat itself but a more inclusive adage would be events in history often bare similarities to those today. While not as catchy, it is more accurate. Recall Thomas Frank's recent opus, What's the Matter with Kansas? It is an analysis of the countryside from a city-dweller. There is no Marxist or populist flavors in the book, but there is a sort of quiet derision written between the lines. Imagine what would happen if Seattleites moved en masse to Kansas to try to preach liberalism to the people. It would be worthless as anything but a comedy. People must reason for themselves. Just look at how well Democracy is working in Iraq. No matter how great your motives, no matter how much it will eventually help someone, you cannot force them into it and expect results. Any attempt to do so makes the one imposing a dictator and the system authoritarian.
I found this most interesting in the second half of the 19th century in Russia. To put it in context, Russia had maintained the institution of slavery for some time. It wasn't until the 1860's that serfdom was abolished. That action, of course, was the greatest change in Russian society in century. It signaled the end of the old aristocracy that Chekhov and Turgenev so vividly described. It also allowed for the new peasant class to be politicized or manipulated.
The first group to attempt to do so was the populists led, in spirit at least, by N. K. Mikhalovsky and M. A. Bukanin. Their followers adhered to a set of principles that was a form of populism wherein the commune (or mir) was the spiritual center of the Russian agrarian society. Therefore, those closest to it, the Russian peasants, were to propel the country into a true democratically socialist state. The populists believed that when the peasants bought in, the country could by-pass capitalism and rocket toward socialism.
So off they went into the country to get involved and indoctrinate the peasants. The effort failed miserably. The peasants were suspicious of the city-dwellers and in many cases, reported them to the police. The agitators were either imprisoned or returned to the cities for plan B.
History may repeat itself but a more inclusive adage would be events in history often bare similarities to those today. While not as catchy, it is more accurate. Recall Thomas Frank's recent opus, What's the Matter with Kansas? It is an analysis of the countryside from a city-dweller. There is no Marxist or populist flavors in the book, but there is a sort of quiet derision written between the lines. Imagine what would happen if Seattleites moved en masse to Kansas to try to preach liberalism to the people. It would be worthless as anything but a comedy. People must reason for themselves. Just look at how well Democracy is working in Iraq. No matter how great your motives, no matter how much it will eventually help someone, you cannot force them into it and expect results. Any attempt to do so makes the one imposing a dictator and the system authoritarian.
Monday, April 03, 2006
USA and MNC spells Synergy
Not to belabor the point, but here is another report of good things happening in Iraq. Allegedly, the U.S. multi-nationals are able to bask in the good news of massive resource acquisition.
At the risk of belaboring yet another point, a corporation's only purpose is to maximize profits. Are they going to make more money by investing in renewable energy technologies or invading countries rich in oil to privatize them? In fact, when they also supply the machines of war, it becomes a win-win. This is the kind of synergy that is most effective, and most sought-after. When you marry the government and the private corporate interest, people like you and me, and especially Iraqi civilians, lose.
At the risk of belaboring yet another point, a corporation's only purpose is to maximize profits. Are they going to make more money by investing in renewable energy technologies or invading countries rich in oil to privatize them? In fact, when they also supply the machines of war, it becomes a win-win. This is the kind of synergy that is most effective, and most sought-after. When you marry the government and the private corporate interest, people like you and me, and especially Iraqi civilians, lose.
Help us GWB!
Most of us are aware of the problems associated with burning fossil fuels for energy. It appears even GWB is attuned to the problem. Be that as it may, even he is completely powerless to do anything about it short of dramatically upending the current body of corporate governance law in the United States.
As long as short term profits supersede every other consideration, there will never be significant development in the area of renewable fuels and sustainable business practices.
Why? The corporate governance statutes in this country do not allow a corporations' officers and directors to worry about renewable energy unless it will maximize profits in the short term.
As long as short term profits supersede every other consideration, there will never be significant development in the area of renewable fuels and sustainable business practices.
Why? The corporate governance statutes in this country do not allow a corporations' officers and directors to worry about renewable energy unless it will maximize profits in the short term.
Oversight, Overschmight
This article describes a good example of business as usual over the last five years. When I sign contracts with people, I usually try to attach an addendum that says, "I am not bound by this agreement."
Actually, I don't do that because I cannot. No one would do business with me if I tried to conduct myself thusly. I imagine those reading this are bound by the same principles. So why is it OK, for the nation's presiding administrator to do it? Are there laws to which he is bound?
Actually, I don't do that because I cannot. No one would do business with me if I tried to conduct myself thusly. I imagine those reading this are bound by the same principles. So why is it OK, for the nation's presiding administrator to do it? Are there laws to which he is bound?
Gorbachev
Let's take a few minutes to remember Mikhail Sergeivich. Time published an article in which he answers questions about his yet to be released book.
Perhaps the most frightening line is not far into the interview, referencing Yelstin: " He allowed the wealth of the country to be taken by a few people."
Does that sound familiar? Does it matter that we did it through the mechanism of corporatism while it happened in Russia through cronyism. On second thought, aren't those two sides of the same coin?
Perhaps the most frightening line is not far into the interview, referencing Yelstin: " He allowed the wealth of the country to be taken by a few people."
Does that sound familiar? Does it matter that we did it through the mechanism of corporatism while it happened in Russia through cronyism. On second thought, aren't those two sides of the same coin?
Friday, March 24, 2006
Global Warming
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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
Dear AOL:
There is an interesting controversy brewing over AOL's plan to charge for email. This article has a tiny bit of background but you can find a few more sources about it through some simple news searches. In fact, a coalition of various groups on both sides of the aisle have is attempting to oppose AOL's plan.
There is something to be said for the owners and developers of certain technology protecting their investment. However, theses large organizations may slowly but steadily rein in the less desirable elements leaving the "internet" a much less interesting and useful entity. When the television first appeared, many thought it would become the great equalizer because of its interactive capabilities. People could see each other and interact with them through the television. That may have been the idea and could have been the reality many years ago. Since then TV has become a portal through which large organizations advertise. While there are many programs that are interesting and no doubt beneficial on many different levels, those benefits are almost exclusively peripheral to its purpose. That purpose is to fragment the viewership into the smallest demographic in order to optimize the advertising. That point may be debatable but to test my theory, turn on the local news at 4:00 pm on a Saturday. You will notice most commercials feature retirement living, 911 bracelets to call the ambulance, and Chia Pets.
If nothing else, the coalition against AOL is participating in an unusual form of consumer revolt. It will be interesting to observe events unfolding and its result. Enjoy!
There is something to be said for the owners and developers of certain technology protecting their investment. However, theses large organizations may slowly but steadily rein in the less desirable elements leaving the "internet" a much less interesting and useful entity. When the television first appeared, many thought it would become the great equalizer because of its interactive capabilities. People could see each other and interact with them through the television. That may have been the idea and could have been the reality many years ago. Since then TV has become a portal through which large organizations advertise. While there are many programs that are interesting and no doubt beneficial on many different levels, those benefits are almost exclusively peripheral to its purpose. That purpose is to fragment the viewership into the smallest demographic in order to optimize the advertising. That point may be debatable but to test my theory, turn on the local news at 4:00 pm on a Saturday. You will notice most commercials feature retirement living, 911 bracelets to call the ambulance, and Chia Pets.
If nothing else, the coalition against AOL is participating in an unusual form of consumer revolt. It will be interesting to observe events unfolding and its result. Enjoy!
Monday, February 27, 2006
Outside the Box?
I worked for two relatively large corporations before starting law school. As one might imagine, I absolutely hated both experiences. Most people can relate because most people have worked in large, or super-sized organizations complete with policies about sharpening pencils and staple use, 50 person HR departments, 200 superfluous emails a day, and bosses who use words like "synergy" or worse yet, "synergies." There were also abundant team building exercises that some junior executive, MBA wielding, member of the applicable boy's-club, presumably mandated. I sat through most of them wondering how things got so off that such activities were necessary.
In both of these organizations, I sat in and often conducted interviews with people who were seeking positions therein. All of them, without fail, explained how well they thought "outside the box." We were sometimes even lucky enough to hear these phrases supported by a couple of faith-promoting examples. The problem is simple: if people actually thought outside the box, why were they so interested to get inside another one? Certainly, some brilliant people may want their brilliance limited by large organizations; they may want the entity's superiors to take credit for their creativity and work. They may even enjoy the social aspects of the daily grind. I never understood it.
I suppose that the financial stability does allow employees to trade in the independence for a certain lifestyle. However, I was never convinced that there is any financial stability in working for a large or even small organization. Chances are fair that the organization will exist next week, but there is no guarantee that any position in it will. In that sense, there is very little stability on either side. There are plenty of people who exert certain pressures regardless of whether you are inside or outside the box. The difference is, if you are on your own or with a few partners, the box is in your hands.
In both of these organizations, I sat in and often conducted interviews with people who were seeking positions therein. All of them, without fail, explained how well they thought "outside the box." We were sometimes even lucky enough to hear these phrases supported by a couple of faith-promoting examples. The problem is simple: if people actually thought outside the box, why were they so interested to get inside another one? Certainly, some brilliant people may want their brilliance limited by large organizations; they may want the entity's superiors to take credit for their creativity and work. They may even enjoy the social aspects of the daily grind. I never understood it.
I suppose that the financial stability does allow employees to trade in the independence for a certain lifestyle. However, I was never convinced that there is any financial stability in working for a large or even small organization. Chances are fair that the organization will exist next week, but there is no guarantee that any position in it will. In that sense, there is very little stability on either side. There are plenty of people who exert certain pressures regardless of whether you are inside or outside the box. The difference is, if you are on your own or with a few partners, the box is in your hands.
Diatribe? Anyone?
I recently heard this statement:
"We cannot control what the government will do."
My response is simple: we do control the government. They are our representatives, OUR government--not the other way around. The people are the only check on the "government." Remember, we elect those people, they do respond to our concerns if we make them. All you have to do is read the recent Dubai-Port story for proof. The fact is, when enough people stand up, they listen. Therefore, it is vital that people participate in the process, attend town/city council meetings, write letters to your representatives on the local and national levels. Attend notice and comment meetings, and get your name on the record by standing up and saying what is on your mind. They are informal and rarely intimidating. In fact, it makes you feel like you are on some TV show like the Gilmore Girls or Northern Exposure in which town meetings occur regularly. The process is designed for public participation and it only works correctly when people do so.
For a quick read of the particularly bad state of affairs in Washington, read this. It would be funny if it was not so terrifying.
As soon as you believe you do not have any control over the government, you don't. I will be the first to admit that it is easy not to participate but that is hardly the point.
"We cannot control what the government will do."
My response is simple: we do control the government. They are our representatives, OUR government--not the other way around. The people are the only check on the "government." Remember, we elect those people, they do respond to our concerns if we make them. All you have to do is read the recent Dubai-Port story for proof. The fact is, when enough people stand up, they listen. Therefore, it is vital that people participate in the process, attend town/city council meetings, write letters to your representatives on the local and national levels. Attend notice and comment meetings, and get your name on the record by standing up and saying what is on your mind. They are informal and rarely intimidating. In fact, it makes you feel like you are on some TV show like the Gilmore Girls or Northern Exposure in which town meetings occur regularly. The process is designed for public participation and it only works correctly when people do so.
For a quick read of the particularly bad state of affairs in Washington, read this. It would be funny if it was not so terrifying.
As soon as you believe you do not have any control over the government, you don't. I will be the first to admit that it is easy not to participate but that is hardly the point.
Seattle Opera and some quick Italian
I was able to catch Cosi Fan Tutti at the Seattle Opera over the weekend. Though the quality of the singers was what you would expect from a Sunday afternoon at the Seattle Opera, the production was wonderful. The production designer was Dr. Jonathan Miller who put the same show on in several other cities. If you are in Seattle and have a chance to take in an opera, even if you have little interest in them, it is worth it just to see the opera house itself. The singers wore modern costumes and during the recitatives, they referenced current events and local cities, even going so far as to make a joke or two about things like "Tacoma aroma, and two dudes from Federal Way."
I have been partial to the "modernization" of the production since I was exposed to it by a small opera company on in Moscow in their production of Verdi's Aida. It was in the setting of World War II where instead of Ethiopia and Egypt, the sides were Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. I have not visited much in the last 10 years, but the theater apparently still exists.
During the performance of any opera you will notice that applause will often explode at the end of an aria, duet, or whenever else other people clap. There are times when people will scream "bravo" to express some measure of their satisfaction. There are a few nuances to this exclamation, and if you mess it up, the Seattle Opera goers, will do absolutely nothing. Even if they do shoot you a pair of evil eyes, you will not see them because it will most likely be dark. Anyway, pay attention to these guidelines:
Shout "Bravo" if you enjoyed the performance of a male who sang alone.
Shout "Brava" (emphasize the last A, bru'VA) if you enjoyed the performance of a female who sang alone.
If it was a group of men whose performance pleased you, shout "bravi." If at least one woman is in the group, shout "brave."
In fact, I advise just clapping, and if you really liked it, just clap a little harder.
For a quick look at what these words mean, see the wiktionary.
Again, it probably makes little difference, but I always thought that if you are going to bring attention to yourself, try to make it neutral or positive. Of course, there are people in Boston looking for jobs in the legal field who may disagree.
I have been partial to the "modernization" of the production since I was exposed to it by a small opera company on in Moscow in their production of Verdi's Aida. It was in the setting of World War II where instead of Ethiopia and Egypt, the sides were Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. I have not visited much in the last 10 years, but the theater apparently still exists.
During the performance of any opera you will notice that applause will often explode at the end of an aria, duet, or whenever else other people clap. There are times when people will scream "bravo" to express some measure of their satisfaction. There are a few nuances to this exclamation, and if you mess it up, the Seattle Opera goers, will do absolutely nothing. Even if they do shoot you a pair of evil eyes, you will not see them because it will most likely be dark. Anyway, pay attention to these guidelines:
Shout "Bravo" if you enjoyed the performance of a male who sang alone.
Shout "Brava" (emphasize the last A, bru'VA) if you enjoyed the performance of a female who sang alone.
If it was a group of men whose performance pleased you, shout "bravi." If at least one woman is in the group, shout "brave."
In fact, I advise just clapping, and if you really liked it, just clap a little harder.
For a quick look at what these words mean, see the wiktionary.
Again, it probably makes little difference, but I always thought that if you are going to bring attention to yourself, try to make it neutral or positive. Of course, there are people in Boston looking for jobs in the legal field who may disagree.
Thursday, February 23, 2006
Remembering Baumanskaya Market
It seems like there are countless stories around the country this week--Senator Santorum's mortgage, the ever-escalating violence in Iraq, the UAE-US port transaction, even spring training. Even Tom Delay's dealings with Russian oil are more interesting than the story that caught me day-dreaming during the commute today....
I have spent several summers and one too many winters in Moscow, Russia. During one of those summers, I lived in the Baumanskaya district of Moscow. It is just up the Yauza River, represented by a stop on the Metro's blue line. You will not find much information about the neighborhood even in travel books. Alexander Pushkin, Russia's greatest poet, was born there. There are numerous churches and temples that you would never hear of except by wandering through. The area was once known as the German quarter, known for the many immigrant laborers hoping in a sort of old-world, Russian dream before there was much of an "American Dream."
In the middle of it all, there is a spectacular Soviet stamp in the form of a huge metal dome that served as the market. At least there was until today. It was certainly difficult to think that just as every other morning people were preparing their goods to sell in true market when the roof collapsed. It is even more difficult to realize that there may have been people who died from whom I personally purchased fresh tomatoes, potatoes, cabbage, beets, and later in the summer, watermelon.
Markets like these are quickly giving way to the mega-giant-humongous-warehouse-superstores. Moscow, unlike many other cities in Eastern Europe, is following the same path. The suburbs are growing strip malls. Even considering the apparent savings, few welcome the longer commutes, poorer quality of products, the superficially-smiling faceless drones who ring you up at the end, and wish you a nice day because it is mandated in the employee manual. The markets of Moscow, and the rest of the world are collapsing. Today, that development was more literal, than figurative.
I have spent several summers and one too many winters in Moscow, Russia. During one of those summers, I lived in the Baumanskaya district of Moscow. It is just up the Yauza River, represented by a stop on the Metro's blue line. You will not find much information about the neighborhood even in travel books. Alexander Pushkin, Russia's greatest poet, was born there. There are numerous churches and temples that you would never hear of except by wandering through. The area was once known as the German quarter, known for the many immigrant laborers hoping in a sort of old-world, Russian dream before there was much of an "American Dream."
In the middle of it all, there is a spectacular Soviet stamp in the form of a huge metal dome that served as the market. At least there was until today. It was certainly difficult to think that just as every other morning people were preparing their goods to sell in true market when the roof collapsed. It is even more difficult to realize that there may have been people who died from whom I personally purchased fresh tomatoes, potatoes, cabbage, beets, and later in the summer, watermelon.
Markets like these are quickly giving way to the mega-giant-humongous-warehouse-superstores. Moscow, unlike many other cities in Eastern Europe, is following the same path. The suburbs are growing strip malls. Even considering the apparent savings, few welcome the longer commutes, poorer quality of products, the superficially-smiling faceless drones who ring you up at the end, and wish you a nice day because it is mandated in the employee manual. The markets of Moscow, and the rest of the world are collapsing. Today, that development was more literal, than figurative.
Monday, February 20, 2006
Biodiesel and Washington
I agreed with the authors of the State of the Union address that the people of the United States are addicted to oil. I was surprised to read about that statement in the address and I was consequently a little disappointed to hear the next day that people determining the energy policy really have no intention or plan to loosen the grip of oil.
I can rant about things out of my control endlessly and often do, but I will try to limit those rantings to non-blog speech.
There are many groups in Washington State has been pushing alternative energy subsidies and other initiatives. The latest is described in this article in the PI. The PI refers to the Seattle Post intelligencer. If any sort of national movement toward renewable and sustainable growth is ever going to develop, it must be driven by the people locally. I know there are many many people especially in this area who spend a lot of time trying to develop and market technology, some with success. Just last year, the legislature in Washington signed a bill into law that awarded tax credits to organizations using alternative energy. The more these initiatives are enacted the more others will take note and jump on board.
I know this has very little to do with the law or my practice, but this is something that I feel may be very applicable to both Russia and Washington in the future. If we are going to drive cars that are fueled by biodiesel, then a lot of farmers will have to grow the ingredients. Others will need to process it. It means jobs, and work for Russians and Washingtonians. They could be both. Much will depend on what we do, here in our local communities in the next few years. Could mustard seeds actually be the antidote to our addiction?
I can rant about things out of my control endlessly and often do, but I will try to limit those rantings to non-blog speech.
There are many groups in Washington State has been pushing alternative energy subsidies and other initiatives. The latest is described in this article in the PI. The PI refers to the Seattle Post intelligencer. If any sort of national movement toward renewable and sustainable growth is ever going to develop, it must be driven by the people locally. I know there are many many people especially in this area who spend a lot of time trying to develop and market technology, some with success. Just last year, the legislature in Washington signed a bill into law that awarded tax credits to organizations using alternative energy. The more these initiatives are enacted the more others will take note and jump on board.
I know this has very little to do with the law or my practice, but this is something that I feel may be very applicable to both Russia and Washington in the future. If we are going to drive cars that are fueled by biodiesel, then a lot of farmers will have to grow the ingredients. Others will need to process it. It means jobs, and work for Russians and Washingtonians. They could be both. Much will depend on what we do, here in our local communities in the next few years. Could mustard seeds actually be the antidote to our addiction?
Sunday, February 19, 2006
What is there to think about business in Vladivostok, Russia?
I spent the Summer of 2004 in Vladivostok for an internship with the Arbitrazhnii Court of the Primorksii Krai. The memory and impression of the city itself etched most deeply in my mind is how close to a world class city it could have been. If the glass were half full, it may yet become so. The mayoral elections were conducted during July, 2004; the telephone poles, city walls, and may every other location that could hold an election poster, did. Every single street corner had five or six college students who mobbed passerby's with pamphlets portraying a futuristic, world class city, which would be the inexorable result of the candidate's election. In the end, and to the chagrin of most, the candidate whose past may or may not have included criminal activity took the day. That occurred after the other candidate was forced to withdraw.
The details have faded with time, and my memory about the specific string of developments giving rise to the election may well be incorrect. I am always looking for clarification and another point of view on such things that are so complex, not to mention, in another language. It is difficult to look at Russian politics without a great degree of skepticism, especially when you read these kind of articles in the daily news wires.
However, there are always reasons for optimism, I suppose. In fact, I recently had a conversation with an attorney in Seattle whose career has emphasized matters in Russia, including foreign direct investment, licensing, and small business matters. He was one of the very few with whom I have spoken who was encouraged by the past and positive about the future.
A delegation from Washington State Bar Association is currently attempting to develop a stronger relationship to the bar in Vladivostok. Lawyers on both side of the ocean are as busy as ever bring the two regions closer. The possible results are too speculative to explore now, but as in most things there are reasons to be both optimistic and hesitant.
The details have faded with time, and my memory about the specific string of developments giving rise to the election may well be incorrect. I am always looking for clarification and another point of view on such things that are so complex, not to mention, in another language. It is difficult to look at Russian politics without a great degree of skepticism, especially when you read these kind of articles in the daily news wires.
However, there are always reasons for optimism, I suppose. In fact, I recently had a conversation with an attorney in Seattle whose career has emphasized matters in Russia, including foreign direct investment, licensing, and small business matters. He was one of the very few with whom I have spoken who was encouraged by the past and positive about the future.
A delegation from Washington State Bar Association is currently attempting to develop a stronger relationship to the bar in Vladivostok. Lawyers on both side of the ocean are as busy as ever bring the two regions closer. The possible results are too speculative to explore now, but as in most things there are reasons to be both optimistic and hesitant.
Jurisdiction of the Arbitrazhnii Courts
A quick and somewhat superficial look at jurisdiction is necessary in order to continue our exploration of the Arbitrazhnii Court of the Russian Federation. I am leaving out the specific references to the articles of the APC. If you are interested in them, please send me an email and I will forward them to you.
The Arbitrazhnii Courts handle economic disputes in Russia. Perhaps the best way to approach this discussion is with an examination of their jurisdiction to hear matters in the Russian Federation. As stated, the rules and principles that govern the arbitrazhnii courts are codified in the Arbitrazhnii Procedural Code ("APC") (pronounced Arbitrazhnii Protzessualnii Kodex, in Russian).
The arbitrazhnii courts have jurisdiction to hear cases concerning economic disputes and other disputes connected with entrepreneurial activity. Article 247 specifically mentions that cases with the participation of foreign parties does not bar the court from hearing the case.
The code enumerates the specific requirements that will satisfy jurisdiction. A litigant must satisfy the requirements of podvedomstvennost and podsudnost. Any party desiring to bring the claim to the arbitrazhnii courts must demonstrate that the court has "kompetenzia" to hear the case. Kompetenzia requires two sub-jurisdictional requirements: "Podevedomstvennost" is stated by Part (razdel) 1 Chapter 4 §1 of the APK. This section governs the types of claims such as economic dispudisputesputes between branches of government, between legal entities, and foreign parties. The second requirement, Podsudnost, found in Part 1, Chapter 4 §2 generally governs the doctrine which U.S. attorneys would most closely equate to venue requirements. This section also enumerates the claims which may be brought directly to the Supreme Arbitrazhnii Court in Moscow. Article 36 of §2, Chapter 4 allows the plaintiff to bring the claim in any court it desires as long as the personal jurisdiction requirements are satisfied. Article 38 gives exceptions to these articles.
Once the court believes that the matter satisfies the benchmark jurisdictional issues, they turn their attention to more jurisdictional requirements including:
Whether The defendant is located on the territory of the Russian Federation;
Whether a representative office, or branch of the foreign party is located in the RF;
Whether or if the dispute arose from an agreement whose execution must take place in the RF; and
A final catch-all clause exists any other occurrences in whose presence there is a tight Connection of the legal relations from the territory of the Russian Federation.
Generally, the plaintiff must bring the claim to the court in the jurisdiction of the defendant's residence or place of business. Parties may also bring claims under this section by an agreement executed in accordance with article 249 of the code, which allows the parties to bring disputes in courts under whose jurisdiction they would not be in any other context of the code. However, this section still requires that the dispute economic in nature, or be between commercial entities. Any such agreement must be in writing in order to bind the court.
Chapter 33 is titled "Particularities of Examining Cases with the Participation of a Foreign Party." This section essentially points out exceptions to the code which are applicable due to the participation of the foreign party. Perhaps the most important article under this heading provides that any cases with the participation of a foreign party are to be governed by the code unless an international agreement applies. The code mandates that should a foreign party participating in the case be outside the Russian Federation, the court may nonetheless proceed once it has documents that prove that the foreign party has received notice of the case. From the author's experience, the majority of these cases proceed without the foreign party ever appearing. Of course, these were cases where the amount in dispute was too low for their appearance to be practical.
Another important exception is the term during which the case must be decided is extended from two to six months. Finally, the code requires that the court leave a claim without action should it be proven that the case is proceeding before a court in another country.
The Arbitrazhnii Courts handle economic disputes in Russia. Perhaps the best way to approach this discussion is with an examination of their jurisdiction to hear matters in the Russian Federation. As stated, the rules and principles that govern the arbitrazhnii courts are codified in the Arbitrazhnii Procedural Code ("APC") (pronounced Arbitrazhnii Protzessualnii Kodex, in Russian).
The arbitrazhnii courts have jurisdiction to hear cases concerning economic disputes and other disputes connected with entrepreneurial activity. Article 247 specifically mentions that cases with the participation of foreign parties does not bar the court from hearing the case.
The code enumerates the specific requirements that will satisfy jurisdiction. A litigant must satisfy the requirements of podvedomstvennost and podsudnost. Any party desiring to bring the claim to the arbitrazhnii courts must demonstrate that the court has "kompetenzia" to hear the case. Kompetenzia requires two sub-jurisdictional requirements: "Podevedomstvennost" is stated by Part (razdel) 1 Chapter 4 §1 of the APK. This section governs the types of claims such as economic dispudisputesputes between branches of government, between legal entities, and foreign parties. The second requirement, Podsudnost, found in Part 1, Chapter 4 §2 generally governs the doctrine which U.S. attorneys would most closely equate to venue requirements. This section also enumerates the claims which may be brought directly to the Supreme Arbitrazhnii Court in Moscow. Article 36 of §2, Chapter 4 allows the plaintiff to bring the claim in any court it desires as long as the personal jurisdiction requirements are satisfied. Article 38 gives exceptions to these articles.
Once the court believes that the matter satisfies the benchmark jurisdictional issues, they turn their attention to more jurisdictional requirements including:
Whether The defendant is located on the territory of the Russian Federation;
Whether a representative office, or branch of the foreign party is located in the RF;
Whether or if the dispute arose from an agreement whose execution must take place in the RF; and
A final catch-all clause exists any other occurrences in whose presence there is a tight Connection of the legal relations from the territory of the Russian Federation.
Generally, the plaintiff must bring the claim to the court in the jurisdiction of the defendant's residence or place of business. Parties may also bring claims under this section by an agreement executed in accordance with article 249 of the code, which allows the parties to bring disputes in courts under whose jurisdiction they would not be in any other context of the code. However, this section still requires that the dispute economic in nature, or be between commercial entities. Any such agreement must be in writing in order to bind the court.
Chapter 33 is titled "Particularities of Examining Cases with the Participation of a Foreign Party." This section essentially points out exceptions to the code which are applicable due to the participation of the foreign party. Perhaps the most important article under this heading provides that any cases with the participation of a foreign party are to be governed by the code unless an international agreement applies. The code mandates that should a foreign party participating in the case be outside the Russian Federation, the court may nonetheless proceed once it has documents that prove that the foreign party has received notice of the case. From the author's experience, the majority of these cases proceed without the foreign party ever appearing. Of course, these were cases where the amount in dispute was too low for their appearance to be practical.
Another important exception is the term during which the case must be decided is extended from two to six months. Finally, the code requires that the court leave a claim without action should it be proven that the case is proceeding before a court in another country.
Saturday, February 18, 2006
Seattle Attorney Network and blogs
As most solo and small firm practitioners know, networking is an essential activity. One of the more enjoyable networking groups in Seattle is the appropriately titled, Seattle Attorney Network.
Each month we get together, have coffee, and talk about our practices. One subject of constant debate and sometimes derision is "blogs," or should I call them, blawgs? One blog that I particularly enjoy is Danny Bronski's. I find that it incorporates interesting content about the law with a strong portion of personality. In my opinion, blogs need both to be worth reading. The law is only relevant because it applies to people. Otherwise it is a theory, a set of rules. It is an exam in law school that the professor made up to torture law students.
On a loosely related note, is there are better designation for solo and small firm practitioners? Lawyers in large firms are often referred to as "biglaw." Do we have anything similar?
Each month we get together, have coffee, and talk about our practices. One subject of constant debate and sometimes derision is "blogs," or should I call them, blawgs? One blog that I particularly enjoy is Danny Bronski's. I find that it incorporates interesting content about the law with a strong portion of personality. In my opinion, blogs need both to be worth reading. The law is only relevant because it applies to people. Otherwise it is a theory, a set of rules. It is an exam in law school that the professor made up to torture law students.
On a loosely related note, is there are better designation for solo and small firm practitioners? Lawyers in large firms are often referred to as "biglaw." Do we have anything similar?
Changes, revisions, modificaitons
After a long break, I have decided to resume regular updates to this blog. However, I decided to modify its title and purpose. As you may or may not notice, I changed the title to reflect one of my favorite works of Russian literature with a cheap legal reference. I always liked saying the word "writs" anyway. It reminds of a crispy, buttery, cracker.
Having recently entered into a partnership with another lawyer, and engaged in the daily grind of building a practice, I think "underground" is a perfectly appropriate reference. Hopefully, it is a word that I will not relate to so well in the not too distant future.
I also realized that there is little value in limiting myself to Russian law. Of course, I plan to post regularly about my experience with Russian Law, but there are too many other ideas, events, and developments that I would like to discuss as well. I see no reason to limit things, and I hope you agree with me.
Having recently entered into a partnership with another lawyer, and engaged in the daily grind of building a practice, I think "underground" is a perfectly appropriate reference. Hopefully, it is a word that I will not relate to so well in the not too distant future.
I also realized that there is little value in limiting myself to Russian law. Of course, I plan to post regularly about my experience with Russian Law, but there are too many other ideas, events, and developments that I would like to discuss as well. I see no reason to limit things, and I hope you agree with me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
