Rape Infographic
from Ultraviolet
This infographic was e-mailed to me from Ultraviolet. I am reprinting with the idea of increasing its circulation. (No copyright infringement is intended). I think as a publisher of an ethics blog, I have a responsibility to spread the word about ethical responsibility.
James Pilant
Manufacturing Renaissance?
Is there or isn’t there a manufacturing Renaissance? I would love to give you a simple yes or no response but the fact is, it is just too early to tell. There is a wonderful chart provided at http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/07/26/manufacturing_rennaissance_is_it_really_happening.html from the magazine, Slate, and the article by Matthew Yglesias, that does tend to indicate such a Renaissance is happening. But that is the best evidence I have seen so far, and there is a lot of disagreement.
A manufacturing Renaissance would a game changer in many areas of corporate social responsibility. The idea that global competition is inevitably destructive of the middle class, labor unions and government regulation would be even less intellectually persuasive than it is now.
It would be wonderful for the nation. It would empower American firms and the nation more generally in their dealings with the world. It would increase American revenues and give American workers more income and more bargaining power.
So, I can be hopeful but the evidence is still lacking that this event is actually happening.
James Pilant
(But the idea does have its adherents) –
Monsters Abroadhttp://monstersabroad.wordpress.com/tag/manufacturing-renaissance/
A regular theme in this blog has been that America’s strategic prospects are being revived by the dynamism of its private sector even as China faces a more problematic future. As earlier posts (here, here and here) have outlined, the marked surge in U.S. oil and natural gas production that has transformed the country’s energy outlook over the last few years promises to have far-reaching economic and geopolitical ramifications. The bonanza of low-cost energy, which the Wall Street Journal dubs “Saudi America”, has also given the U.S. manufacturing sector a significant competitive advantage.
Separate from the energy boom but fortifying its manufacturing effects are America’s innate advantages in what is becoming known as the “third industrial revolution” – one that is powered by high-skill labor as well as seminal progress in the areas of artificial intelligence, robotics, nanotechnology, composite materials, and “additive manufacturing” or three-dimensional computerized manufacturing.
From the web site, Inside Public Minds.
http://insidepublicminds.wordpress.com/2013/05/03/usa-made-manufacturing-renaissance/
If so, this could mean good news for the economy. Manufacturing represents 67% of private-sector research and development (R&D) spending and 30% of the country’s productivity growth. Every $1 of manufacturing activity returns $1.48 to the economy. For the first time in more than a decade, the number of factory jobs has increased instead of decreased. American productivity growth, compressed wages, and higher energy costs have contributed to the return of manufacturing jobs in the U.S. Some of America’s largest blue chip multinationals, like Ford, GE, and United Technologies, are headed back to the states.
From the web site, Barberbiz.
http://deanbarber.wordpress.com/2013/04/07/is-a-manufacturing-renaissance-real-or-hype/
For awhile there, I was feeling like a voice in the wilderness. I was going against the tide and still am to some degree. But I no longer feel so much alone.
Now others, with more credibility than me, are saying what I’ve been saying in this blog for more than a year. It was a Wall Street Journal last week from which I felt some vindication. Here’s the headline: “Signs of Factory Revival Hard to Spot.”
And here is the first sentence or the lead, which states it better than I ever have: “The idea that American manufacturing is on the cusp of a renaissance is everywhere these days – except in the hard numbers.”
As my friend Paulie on the Lower East Side would say, “badda bing, badda boom.”
From the web site, America and the Global Economy.
http://americaandtheglobaleconomy.wordpress.com/tag/manufacturing-2/
It is still unclear if the “Manufacturing Renaissance” will generate enduring consequences for the U.S. economy—an increase in U.S. industrial production has yet to occur. According to the Federal Reserve, industrial production fell by 0.5 percent in April. Furthermore, although the total number of manufacturing jobs in the United States has increased by 520,000 since January 2010, only 50,000 of those jobs are due to re-shoring. It is therefore disputable as to whether efforts to bring manufacturing back to the U.S. will contribute to profound and lasting benefits for the U.S. economy, or if companies’ current efforts in this capacity will merely amount to a short-lived phase.
From the web site, paco manufacturing’s blog.
http://pacomfg.com/blog/2011/06/21/outsourcing-doesn%E2%80%99t-mean-offshoring-at-least-not-by-us/
Back in May, an analysis by The Boston Consulting Group, was released stating that the rise in China’s labor cost could see a “Manufacturing Renaissance” within the United States, particularly within certain states. It was an uplifting article as it stated, “We expect net labor costs for manufacturing in China and the U.S. to converge by around 2015. As a result of the changing economics, you’re going to see a lot more products ‘Made in the USA’ in the next five years.” The article goes on to state that a number of companies have already begun to rethink their production locations and supply chains for goods destined to be sold in the U.S. It looks as if a window of opportunity is opening within the manufacturing sector of the U.S. economy, which should be given serious consideration by all.
From the web site, Ryan’s Writing House.
http://ryanmhenry.wordpress.com/2013/04/14/manufacturing-growth-renaissance-or-return-to-normalcy/
In order for the manufacturing sector to truly begin to grow again in the United States, we have to understand where the growth is and promote that. The strengths that we have here is that we are located in a major consumer base, and can produce extremely high quality goods faster than pretty much anywhere else. If the US focuses more on higher end manufacturing, it can still take advantage of the fact that every dollar of manufacturing activity returns $1.48 to the economy, without losing sight of our strengths. This also means that we have to make significant changes to our education system, to ensure that it is giving out the type of education that people need to be successful in this increasingly globalized game.
Policing for Profit
A quote from the article, Federal Judge Orders Justice Department To Return Over Million Dollars Taken At Traffic Stop By Nebraska Officers, from the web site, Jonathan Turley.
We have previously discussed how police are increasingly doing drug stops on pretextual grounds and seizing any money that a driver cannot explain to their satisfaction. It is called “policing for profit” and departments are able to keep much of seized money in these stops. The federal government is being forced to return over $1 million to Tara Mishra, 33, of California, who was taking her life savings as a stripper to buy her own business. That was before it was seized by Nebraska state troopers who declared that it must be drug proceeds. Even though no drugs were found and there was no basis for concluding the cash was from drug proceeds, the matter became a federal case and the Obama Administration fought her to deny her even a hearing for demanding the money back. Now U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon has ordered them to give back the money. However, this is not considered theft because police officers took the money at a traffic stop. The case is United States of America v. $1,074,900.00 in United States Currency, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11544 (D. Neb. 2013).
Jonathan Turley is absolutely right. This kind of confiscation, “policing for profit,” is ridiculous.
What happened to “innocent until proven guilty?” If you read the following articles, you will quickly note the slender evidence used to seize this money. Is that how things are supposed to work in a democracy? We suspect, therefore we seize?
More to the point, isn’t someone somewhere concerned about the police generating profits from enforcing certain laws? If enforcing drug laws is profitable and enforcing rape laws is not, what does that imply for justice?
Doesn’t that mean that instead of deciding where to deploy law enforcement based on public safety, the decision could be made on the basis of profit? Of what can be profitably seized?
Doesn’t this take police from a public service perspective to a mixed practice of profit and service with the public ignorant of what the proportions are?
What kind of legislators thought this would be a good idea? Are we deliberately trying to create law enforcement agencies based on the profit motive? Is that good policy?
Law enforcement should be profit neutral, so that crimes are handled by their danger to public safety not whether or not a forfeiture is likely.
I don’t have any problems with seizing property used in crime but I have serious doubts about assuming money or property is forfeit when no charges are filed.
James Pilant
From around the web.
From the web site, Lord of the Net.
http://servaasschrama.com/2013/07/25/nebraska-police-owe-a-stripper-1-million/
George Washington University law professor Jonathon Turley’s most recent blog entry claims that behavior like this falls in line with an increasing trend called “policing for profit.” Authorities will conduct a drug stop on “pretextual grounds,” like speeding, and then confiscate any money the driver can’t explain to their satisfaction.
According to the Institute for Justice, police can legally use the money, or profits from selling any other confiscated property, to fund their agencies. So-called civil forfeiture doesn’t require the police to charge owners before confiscating their property.
The Southern Poverty Law Center has won the return of almost $20,000 to a Latino migrant farmworker whose money was taken by police during a traffic stop in Alabama despite criminal charges never being brought against him.
From the web site, Southern Poverty Law Center.
An Alabama circuit judge dismissed the case and ordered the money returned to Victor Marquez. The actions came after the state refused to provide documents and information to SPLC lawyers representing Marquez.
A Loxley, Ala., police officer confiscated the money during a May 2008 traffic stop, claiming it was drug money.
“This traffic stop was nothing short of piracy,” said Mary Bauer, director of the SPLC’s Immigrant Justice Project. “In the end, Loxley authorities apparently thought it was better to return Mr. Marquez’s hard-earned money than to open their practices to public scrutiny.”
From the web site, Ready or not … here I CHUM!!
http://theangryfisherman.wordpress.com/tag/illegal-seizure-of-money/
By Phil Williams
Chief Investigative Reporter
NASHVILLE, Tenn. — A major News Channel 5 investigation has uncovered serious questions about Tennessee’s war on drugs. Among the questions: are some police agencies more concerned about making money off the drugs, than stopping them?
At the center of this months-long investigation are laws that let officers pull driver over looking for cash. Those officers do not even have to file criminal charges against a person to take his/her money.
It turns out, those kind of stops are now happening almost every day in Middle Tennessee. Case in point: a 2009 stop where a tractor trailer was stopped for a traffic violation, leading to a search and the discovery of large blocks containing almost $200,000 cash — cash that officers keep on the suspicion that it’s drug money.
From the web site, The Intersection of Madness and Reality.
http://www.rippdemup.com/2012/05/tennessee-cop-robs-out-of-state-driver-of-22000-after-traffic-stop/
Speaking to then District Attorney General Kim Helper about these stops and seizures in her jurisdiction, when asked if it was a way to make money, she responded, “Well, you know, when you say ‘make money,’ I guess it is a way for us to continue to fund our operations so that we can put an end to drug trafficking and the drug trade within this district.” So how are police officers able to trample one’s 4th Amendment right as it relates to search and seizures? Easy. Under the guise of the “war on drugs,” the state allows police to seize money simply based on the suspicion that it’s linked to drug trafficking. The troubling part about the application of said practice, is that even without an arrest, an individuals money can be seized.
I guess this gives credence to the notion that money has no owners, just spenders.
The rise of the benefit corporation, a type of corporate form that didn’t exist before 2010, is remarkable in its speed. This kind of corporation offers an organization not tied to the narrow goal of short term profit maximization. While the “judgment rule” seems to offer corporations a freer decision making climate to be environmentally friendly and exist with some freedom from being sued for loss of share value, there is some legal uncertainty. The Benefit Corporation removes all doubt. This kind of corporation does not exist for profit maximization.
This offers the opportunity for building purposeful organizations with a stated and legal responsibility to do no harm. This is a far better model than the soulless machines of destruction we often experience as the modern corporation.
This may herald a new era in corporate social responsibility. It only takes a small adjustment in the law to have tremendous effects on the culture over time. This may be one of those historical adjustments.
James Pilant
For my students, the most important concepts here for study are the “judgment rule” and “short term profit maximization.”
The benefit corporation, the brainchild of the nonprofit B Lab, is predicated on a simple idea: use the power of business to solve social problems. Companies incorporated under legal frameworks like the one passed in Delaware strive to maximize profits, but can do so while also pursuing a broad range of social and environmental goals, from low carbon emissions to generous employee benefits and transparency in governance. Under traditional corporate law, a firm’s fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders to maximize profits is privileged over other commitments to social or environmental responsibility. The benefit corporation amends this, legally enshrining the interests of stakeholders, including employees, customers, the community and the environment, alongside those of shareholders. Among other things, benefit corporation status shields a company’s social and environmental objectives when it is up for sale. Today, there are at least 200 legally registered benefit corporations (and likely many more, as some states don’t currently track their incorporation), including large companies like Patagonia and many smaller ones like Vermont-based WomenLead and New York-based Clay Marketing. The “shared value” created by these companies is heralded by benefit corporation enthusiasts as a radical refashioning of contemporary capitalism.
From Wikipedia: (I included this section from the Wikipedia article because I want you, kind reader, to get a grasp on the speed of the change in corporate law. Business law tends to be very conservative and usually slow moving, but not in this case. jp)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefit_Corporation
In April 2010, Maryland became the first U.S. state to pass benefit corporation legislation. As of January 2013 California, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Vermont, and Virginia had all passed legislation allowing for the creation of benefit corporations. Legislation is also pending in Illinois that establishes a new type of entity called the “benefit LLC,” making available to limited liability companies the same opportunities afforded to Illinois corporations under the state’s Benefit Corporation Law.[1] Passage of the bill would make Illinois the first state to offer a social enterprise the opportunity to be a benefit L3C.[2]
Maryland’s legislation was signed into law on April 13, 2010 and became effective on October 1, 2010.
Virginia’s legislation was signed into law on March 26, 2011 and became effective on July 1, 2011.
Vermont’s legislation was signed into law on May 19, 2010 and became effective on July 1, 2011.
New Jersey’s legislation passed on January 10, 2011 and became effective when it was signed into law on March 1, 2011.
Hawaii’s legislation was signed into law on July 8, 2011 and became effective upon signing.
California’s legislation was signed into law on October 9, 2011 and became effective on January 1, 2012.
New York’s legislation was signed into law on December 12, 2011 and became effective on February 10, 2012.
Louisiana’s legislation became law on May 31, 2012 and went into effect on August 1, 2012.
South Carolina’s legislation became law on June 6, 2012 and became effective the same day.
Massachusetts’ benefit corporation legislation became law on August 7, 2012 and became effective on December 1, 2012.
Illinois’s legislation was signed into law on August 2, 2012 and went into effect on January 1, 2013.
Pennsylvania’s legislation became law on October 24 and will become effective on January 22, 2013.
Washington, D.C. legislation was signed by the Mayor on February 8, 2013 will go into effect after 30 days of congressional review.
Arkansas’s legislation was signed by Governor Mike Beebe on April 19, 2013 and will go into effect 90 days after sine die.
Some Videos on the Benefit Corporation
Benefit corporations — Robert Shiller (A straightforward explanation)
From around the web.
From the web site, IIC Investing in Communities.
Guest post by Layton Olson. Layton specializes in representing tax exempt community, trade, and professional organizations at Howe & Hutton LTD.
Last month, a dozen companies committed to advancing social good filed to be classified as ‘Benefit Corporations’ in California. Their decisions represent a commitment to business strategies that systematically contribute financial, time, human, and other resources to charitable, educational and community improvement initiatives and institutions. California has joined the six states – Vermont, Maryland, New York, New Jersey, Virginia and Hawaii- that have enacted so-called public benefit or “B Corp” legislation since 2010. Colorado, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Michigan and some cities have similar laws under consideration.
While traditional C Corporations are chartered to maximize benefit (i.e. profits) for shareholders, the B Corporation is legally chartered to consider and benefit stakeholders – a group that also includes employees, the environment, vendors, and the broader community… This legal status shields corporate directors from “stock-drop lawsuits,” in which shareholders can sue corporate leadership for knowingly acting in ways that decrease profits (i.e. raising social or environmental standards). Benefit Corporations must also publish an annual benefit report, which publicly discloses environmental and social performance using 3rd party reporting standards – therefore increasing transparency and accountability to shareholders and a burgeoning class of social investors.
From the web site, Paradigms for Progress.
What I learned at the workshop was that a benefit corporation is a new corporate legal structure that several states have established (Massachusetts passed BC legislation in August 2012) to provide an alternative to for-profit entities that want to include a public mission equally alongside seeking a profit. This is significant because historically, for-profit corporate legal structures bound CEOs and boards to pursue profit over all other considerations, regardless of the potential social and environmental costs. In addition, while not all corporate lawyers agree, founders and CEOs of traditional for-profit corporations perceived as making decisions that jeopardized the bottom line, can be fired.
Consequently, while there are many contributing factors to the numerous social and environmental challenges humanity’s faces, a very significant factor is the corporation’s pathological pursuit of profit at the expense of public health and environmental sustainability. This pathological pursuit of profit leads many corporate decision-makers to externalize as many costs as possible. As Joel Bakan, highlighted in his book, The Corporation, “It is no exaggeration to say that the corporation’s built-in compulsion to externalize its costs is at the root of many of the world’s social and environmental ills.” (My Emphasis, jp)
From the web site, Pennsylvania Nonprofit Law blog.
This new construct, called a “Benefit Corporation,” stresses sustainability along with financial success. More to the point, this new model is a boon to the non-profit world. It provides the opportunity for increased cooperation with a conscientious corner of the for-profit sector and the potential to leverage more sustainable impacts on business practices beyond existing corporations. Benefit or “B” Corporations redefine the modern notion of commercial success by valuing “stakeholders” above “shareholders.” Unlike traditional corporations, B Corporations must facilitate, and publicly report, positive social and environmental impacts through their work in order to register with the non-profit organization, B Lab (http://www.bcorporation.net). This third-party validation process provides a number of valuable benefits to participating businesses:
Save Money. B Corporations have the potential to deliver immediate financial value, and B Lab has already saved B Corps over $1M through service partnerships.
Set Yourself Apart. B Corporations differentiate themselves in the marketplace, and the certification process allows companies to generate press, meet sustainability requirements set by other companies, enhance reputation and mitigate potential trust erosion from consumers.
Find Common Ground. B Corporations offer a “common ground” for businesses that are committed to both the mission-driven ethos of the non-profit world and the best practices of the for-profit section.
Connect With Your Peers. Through B Lab, B Corporations are encouraged (and incentivized) to collaborate amongst themselves and share best practices in sustainability, marketing, finance, IT, and HR.
Grow Faster and Smarter. The raw numbers (http://www.bcorporation.net/resources/bcorp/documents/2011-AR_B-Index.pdf) demonstrate that registered B Corporations expand at a more consistent rate, work more closely with other area organizations, offer better benefits to their employees, and foster more positive change within their communities than traditional corporations.
From the web site, Class War in America. (I particularly enjoyed this post and recommend you visit the site and read the entire article. jp)
http://classwarinamerica.wordpress.com/2012/02/15/introducing-the-benefit-corporation/
There’s a promising development in the capitalism department these days. It’s called the Benefit Corporation. It’s pretty new, and it’s important. This article in The Nation tells you what’s what.
Benefit corporations are characterized by three things: (1) The purpose of such companies is to support the triple bottom line. That is, they are sworn to protecting the environment and doing good things for the community as well as earning profit; (2) Their social accountability standards are high; (3) They work to build sustainable businesses that are designed to last.
Here are some web sites of Benefit Corporations:
The Documentary, King Corn
I have shown many films in class over the last five years. I tend to shy away from documentaries and use commercial movies to make points. For instance, I use the film, Sabrina, to bring up the issue of class differences, and it is a consistently successful film commanding class attention and getting intelligent responses when they analyze the influence of class.
However, I have two documentaries that have been consistently successful in class use. One of them is Gasland, the other King Corn.
King Corn is story of two men who do a simple experiment in the pursuit of truth. Concerned by the diminishing life spans of Americans, they discover that their diet is primarily corn. They journey to Iowa and grow an acre of corn to see how the process works. They talk to many people in their travels and these conversations are the best part of the film.
The issues of corn, overproduction, factory farming and high fructose corn syrup are very controversial and can be very emotional. The documentary’s approach, the humble seeker after truth, sets the emotional level very low and the film is amusing and relaxing. Nevertheless my students do leave the film uneasy about the state of American agriculture and there are usually a good many comments about what we should be eating.
I usually add some lecture material on the Cuban Embargo, and go into more depth on the high fructose corn syrup controversy.
If you are a fellow instructor I recommend you use the film. It used to be available of Netflix but now you have to purchase it or find it on the web.
It can be purchased here – http://www.amazon.com/King-Corn-Bob-Bledsoe/dp/B001EP8EOY for the very reasonable price (today) of $10.49 for a new copy.
James Pilant
From around the web.
From the web site, PBS.
http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/kingcorn/film.html
As Ian and Curt discover, almost everything Americans eat contains corn.
High-fructose corn syrup, corn-fed meat, and corn-based processed foods
are the staples of the modern diet. America’s record harvests of corn
are supported by a government subsidy system that promotes corn
production beyond all market demand. As Ian and Curt return to Iowa to
watch their 10,000-pound harvest fill the combine’s hopper and make its
way into America’s food, they realize their acre of land shouldn’t be
planted in corn again—if they can help it.
From the web site, Docurama Films.
http://www.docurama.com/docurama/king-corn/
Engrossing and eye-opening, KING CORN is a fun and crusading journey into
the digestive tract of our fast food nation where one ultra-industrial,
pesticide-laden, heavily-subsidized commodity dominates the food
pyramid from top to bottom – corn. Fueled by curiosity and a dash of
naiveté, college buddies Ian Cheney and Curt Ellis return to their
ancestral home of Greene, Iowa to figure out how the modest kernel
conquered America.
From the web site, Food Democracy.
http://fooddemocracy.wordpress.com/2007/10/17/king-corn-you-are-what-you-eat/
There is legislative logic to the flood of cheap corn-based foods. In
2005, federal subsidies spent $9.4 billion in taxpayer money to promote
corn production. For Iowa farmers, these payments often mean the
difference between profit and loss on a given acre. With subsidies
promoting production beyond market demand, the raw materials for an
obesity epidemic are readily at hand.
From the web site, Eco Streaming.
http://ecostreamblog.wordpress.com/2009/10/05/king-corn/
My father calls this part of the U.S. “God’s Country”. And I do believe
that he is correct. It is an amazing place in our country, and in the
world. But now the corn grown there is not for us to feast on as it used
to be. It is used primarily for manufactured sweeteners and animal
feed. You can learn more about this when you see the film by two young
men determined to discover the genesis and path of our food production.
They set out on a journey to grow one acre of corn, and they learned
more than they ever knew they would. See King Corn. You can rent it at your local video store. It is worth a watch.
From the web site, Groundswell.
Live from the Union Square subway: A big food message that tips its hat to changing consumer perception. When I saw this poster, the first thing I thought of was the film King Corn.
The filmmakers explain that grass-fed cows used to take 2-3 years to
get fat and ready for our beef consumption. Once we started feeding
them corn, however, they got to the same weight in just 15 months.
By changing the diet of our cows, we’re forcing them into false
maturation. With this, and so many of our industrial food ways, we
wrestle nature into the ground.
From the web site, Abagond.
http://abagond.wordpress.com/2012/03/30/king-corn/
Things I liked about the film:
From the web site, The Public Amateur. (If you want a cinema based analysis of the film this is where to go.)
http://publicamateur.wordpress.com/2008/04/07/anecdotes-of-research/#more-6
On the odyssey of the pilgrim researcher, many experts are consulted. In the set up they visit a lab where they have their hair analyzed to get the data version of the typical American eater. Yup, the hair speaks counter-intuitive truth to reason: a diet of soda and hamburgers and snack foods delivers what they suspected: the main ingredient in their hair is corn. Look in the bioinformatic mirror and you read what you eat/are.
One of the strengths of the film is their respect for the Iowa farmers they encounter. They don’t assume anything about their informants’ lives, opinions or class affiliation. They refrain from interpreting and judging what they learn, but the knowledge they acquire complicates the decisions they have to make. And despite their restraint, those complications are ethical ones.
From the web site, BE: Nutrifit.
http://benutrifit.wordpress.com/2013/05/24/king-corn/
King Corn is a documentary about two men, Ian Cheney and Curt Ellis, who
study where their food comes from. The film begins with the
realization that corn is in most of our foods and that it is one of the
most productive and most subsidized grains in the United States. Iowa
alone produces 2 trillion corn crops which is the largest in American
history and is enough to feed the entire United States (Wolfe, Cheney,
Ellis, & Miller, 2012). Ian and Curt move to Iowa to plant their
own crop of corn and then follow it through the food system. They end
up raising all sorts of questions about the food we eat, how it is
farmed, and what happens to it after the harvest.
From the web site, The New Home Economics.
http://newhomeeconomics.wordpress.com/2009/03/26/king-corn/
It’s just amazing to see how much Earl Butz‘s farm policy in the 1970s, which I’m sure he enacted with really good intentions, has changed family farms, our health, and our environment, and all for the worse. Does that mean the old farm policy of the 50s and 60s would work now? I don’t know. But something has got to give, and the farmers in the documentary were in agreement that the ridiculous amounts of corn they produce are, well, ridiculous.
I wish I knew what the solution was. Simply educating consumers to make informed choices is a start, but I just don’t think it’s enough, not when our government is pouring giant subsidies on a crop that no one can eat.
When I write a blog post I either begin or end by seeking out other opinions. Sometimes, the search comes up with little. There are many web sites which simply repeat other content. I need original content to illustrate my points and add depth to my subject. Often, I am delighted to find “gems,” wonderful web sites packed with delightful writing that is both new and easily quotable.
Each week, I select one of these blogs that strikes me as significant in its intelligence and originality. This week the blog is The Oldspeak Journal.
http://theoldspeakjournal.wordpress.com/
Originating in May of 2010, the Oldspeak Journal is not shy about addressing major issues. The last article I quoted was on the Fukushima disaster. Today’s article is “Welcome To The “Era Of Persistent Conflict”: Pentagon Bracing For Public Dissent Over Climate & Energy Shocks.” The range of the material is breathtaking.
James Pilant
Here’s a particularly delicious quote from the July 9th posting, “How Cryptography Is A Key Weapon In The Fight Against Empire States’ Campaign For Global Control.”
“This is why Julian Assange, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden, the late
Aaron Schwartz and other of their ilk are have been pursued, persecuted
& prosecuted with such relentless ferocity. They understand that
information, truthful information, has profound and transformative power to change the world for the betterment of all. They understand that the new slavery is digital,
and are selflessly trying to liberate our minds and bodies by widely
disseminating previously secret, truthful information. They understand
that information is not “aiding our enemies” as our controllers tell us;
it’s liberating them and us as well. It’s leveling the playing field.
It’s exposing lies, corruption, exploitation, murder, illegality,
subjugation, greed, sociopathy, and countless other manner of aberrant
and destructive behaviors that are putting our civilization and planet
in peril while being used to control us and take advantage of our
ignorance. They understand that truthful information is key to
protecting civil liberties, human and planetary rights. People are
currently being controlled quite effectively with yodabites of false
information. Assange et al understand that it’s in our controllers best
interests to keep our attention focused on triviality and not reality.
The small portions of truthful information that have disseminated are
already having significant effects. Independent journalists and
whistleblowers are the preeminent threat to the Supra-Governmental
Corporate Network. It it why they are being held up as dangerous enemies
of the state. Elites must suppress their efforts at all costs for the
terminally corrupted system they’ve created to continue to function at
status quo. Total freedom of information is a powerful agent of
democracy and equality. Elites are doing all they can to prevent it from
becoming reality. Computer code is the new nuclear bomb. Our
controllers cannot allow The People’s finger to be on the button.”
Here’s another from the May 29th, 2013 posting, Rise Up or Die: (This is as good as blogging gets. jp)
http://theoldspeakjournal.wordpress.com/2013/05/29/rise-up-or-die/
It is time to build radical mass movements that defy all formal centers of power and make concessions to none. It is time to employ the harsh language of open rebellion and class warfare. It is time to march to the beat of our own drum. The law historically has been a very imperfect tool for justice, as African-Americans know, but now it is exclusively the handmaiden of our corporate oppressors; now it is a mechanism of injustice. It was our corporate overlords who launched this war. Not us. Revolt will see us branded as criminals. Revolt will push us into the shadows. And yet, if we do not revolt we can no longer use the word “hope.”
Herman Melville’s “Moby-Dick” grasps the dark soul of global capitalism. We are all aboard the doomed ship Pequod, a name connected to an Indian tribe eradicated by genocide, and Ahab is in charge. “All my means are sane,” Ahab says, “my motive and my object mad.” We are sailing on a maniacal voyage of self-destruction, and no one in a position of authority, even if he or she sees what lies ahead, is willing or able to stop it. Those on the Pequod who had a conscience, including Starbuck, did not have the courage to defy Ahab. The ship and its crew were doomed by habit, cowardice and hubris. Melville’s warning must become ours. Rise up or die.
From the web site, Fractured Paradigm.
http://fracturedparadigm.com/2013/05/01/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-for-cops/#axzz2ZpMN3iNJ
A man whose bid to become a police officer was rejected after he scored too high on an intelligence test has lost an appeal in his federal lawsuit against the city.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld a lower court’s decision that the city did not discriminate against Robert Jordan because the same standards were applied to everyone who took the test.
“This kind of puts an official face on discrimination in America against people of a certain class,” Jordan said today from his Waterford home. “I maintain you have no more control over your basic intelligence than your eye color or your gender or anything else.”
(Jordan scored over 125 on the IQ portion of the test disqualifying him from being a police officer under that department’s rules. jp)
Below are my comments:
When I was fourteen, I read the complete Sherlock Holmes, all of the stories and all of the novels in four days. I have been reading about crimes and about solving crimes ever since. Here we are presented with a conundrum not about a crime but about police practice.It seems that every fictional sleuth from Sam Spade to Phillip Marlowe to Miss Marple and Hercule Poirot are unable to join a police department at any point during their lives because they are too smart. Apparently, every single policeman, detective etc. can never rise above Lestrade of Sherlock Holmes fame, a purely average member of law enforcement continually baffled by Holmes’ methods.
I disagree with the court. The law simply doesn’t make any sense. Where is the evidence that high IQ people find police work boring and unrewarding? I think the law fails the “rational basis” test and should be declared unconstitutional.
James Pilant
From around the web.
From the web site, 21st Century Theater
http://21stcenturytheater.wordpress.com/2013/07/17/us-oks-bar-on-high-iq-cops/
From the web site, Perez Hilton.
http://perezhilton.com/2012-01-02-man-rejected-from-police-academy-for-being-too-smart#.Ue3ll20SSHM
So get this!
A man in Connecticut had a simple dream — to become a cop. But unfortunately for him, he’s too smart! Sorry buddy, you’re just too—wait, what!?! Seriously?? Really??
According to Robert Jordan, he was rejected from the badge because he tested too high on his intelligence test. …huh?
He sued for discrimination, but he lost after the court ruled “the same standards were applied to him as everyone else.”
Does the FBI Catch Terrorists?
I’ve been aware of this for years. I would read through the whole newspaper article reporting the FBI operation and regularly discovered the “terrorists” had no money, no guns, no explosives, and no coherent plan.
I don’t see how these kinds of operations make us safer. In fact, the only thing I can see is the public relations machine of the FBI burnishing its image after its spectaculor failures in the 9/11 attacks. (That’s not just my opinion – read the 9/11 report – http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf
James Pilant
Here’s the link –
http://www.salon.com/2013/07/10/only_1_percent_of_terrorists_caught_by_fbi_are_real_partner/
Here’s an excerpt – ]
I’d say that the majority of the foiled attacks that they cite are really only foiled attacks because the FBI made the attack possible, and most of the people who are caught in these so-called foiled attacks are caught through sting operations that use either an undercover FBI agent or informant posing as some sort of Al-Qaeda operative.
In all of these cases, the defendants, or the would-be terrorists, are people who at best have a vague idea that they want to commit some sort of violent act or some sort of act of terrorism but have no means on their own. They don’t have weapons. They don’t have connections with any international terrorist groups.
In many cases they’re mentally ill or they’re economically desperate. An undercover informant or agent posing as an Al-Qaeda operative gives them everything they need… gives them the transportation, gives them the money if they need it, and then gives them the bomb and even the idea for the terrorist attack. And then when that person pushes a button to detonate the bomb that they believe will explode—a bomb that was provided to them in whole by the FBI—agents rush in, arrest them and charge them with conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction and then parade that person out to the public saying, “Look at us. We caught a terrorist. This is us keeping you safe.”
If you look at the record of prosecutions in the decade after 911, there has yet to be a case of some Al-Qaeda operative providing the means for a wannabe terrorist to do an act of terrorism. It’s only the FBI that’s providing the means through these sting operations. What this has done is really inflate the threat of terrorism within the United States—particularly from Muslim terrorists—because in almost all of these cases sting operations target men on the fringes of Muslim communities who might be mentally ill, economically desperate or otherwise very easily manipulated by an informant who can make a lot of money in these sting operations.
(Does the FBI Catch Terrorists?)
Milton Friedman’s Dumbest Idea (The article actually says “the world’s dumbest idea,” but it is longer than the recommended length for titles if you are doing “search engine optimization and I had to cut it. jp)
I wish I had written the article below. I love every word of it, and the most astonishing thing about this writing is where it appears, in Forbes. That takes by breath away. How did he get past the editor?
Well, enough of that –
The article is very much what I have been saying in previous articles on this web site and in public, that is, the idea that a corporation’s sole purpose is to make money for the shareholder is ridiculous. I’d start my analysis with “non-profits,” and get more legally critical as I went through the various kinds of corporations and what they were used for.
This is a quote of mine from 2010 –
http://pilantsbusinessethics.com/2010/07/27/american-business-ethical-collapse/
Generally speaking, articles dealing with the crisis focus on derivatives, Sallie Mae, the business press, rating agencies, etc. They all share blame and a lot of it. I have always been convinced that the underlying problem was greed, self interest, the corrosive effects of Milton Friedman’s bizarre doctrine of economic utopia, and the replacement of critical scrutiny by frantic cheerleading in the financial press, and I have some more villains to name.
Bogle doesn’t dodge the ethical question. He wonders how we got here and how we can get out. He longs for the day when businessmen understood the value of trust and fair dealing. I’m not surprised to find that Mr. Bogle has no simple solution. It took four decades of worship of the financial means of production of little more than electronic impulses to triumph over the creation of actual goods. This isn’t going to be easy, and it it likely to fail subjecting this country to a chain of financial meltdowns each one of which will severely damage the lives of millions of Americans who will bear the chief cost not only of their way of life but paying for the meltdown themselves out of their “widow’s mite.”
This is another from 7/25/2010.
http://pilantsbusinessethics.com/2010/07/25/wall-street-looked-the-other-way/
This is capitalism run off the tracks. Greed out weighed simple good judgment. Obvious signs of trouble, not just obvious but certain evidence of approaching disaster, were ignored as money piled up.
The market was supposed to be self regulating. Read a little Milton Friedman. This economic freedom to innovate was supposed to lead to better lives for all Americans, perhaps the whole world. This utopia, this nirvana, has thus far failed to appear. But incomes in a handful of the well placed are measured in the billions.
And another from 12/20/2009.
http://pilantsbusinessethics.com/2009/12/20/are-businessmen-morally-older-than-ten/another,
Now, you could make a good argument that this kind of business thought (Milton Friedman, etc) actually falls into the second level where self interest and avoidance of punishment become primary concerns. However, making moral decisions at the second level of Kohlberg’s six stages is just about as insulting as reasoning at the first.
My second point is when business is considered only as a money making endeavor, all the other levels of moral development don’t just become irrelevant, they become a block and a hazard to making maximum profit.
If you are short on time, please read the brief excerpt below, but if you have time click on the link and read the whole article. It merits it.
James Pilant
No popular idea ever has a single origin. But the idea that the sole purpose of a firm is to make money for its shareholders got going in a major way with an article by Milton Friedman in the New York Times on September 13, 1970.
As the leader of the Chicago school of economics, and the winner of Nobel Prize in Economics in 1976, Friedman has been described by The Economist as “the most influential economist of the second half of the 20th century…possibly of all of it”. The impact of the NYT article contributed to George Will calling him “the most consequential public intellectual of the 20th century.”
Friedman’s article was ferocious. Any business executives who pursued a goal other than making money were, he said, “unwitting puppets of the intellectual forces that have been undermining the basis of a free society these past decades.” They were guilty of “analytical looseness and lack of rigor.” They had even turned themselves into “unelected government officials” who were illegally taxing employers and customers.
How did the Nobel-prize winner arrive at these conclusions? It’s curious that a paper which accuses others of “analytical looseness and lack of rigor” assumes its conclusion before it begins. “In a free-enterprise, private-property system,” the article states flatly at the outset as an obvious truth requiring no justification or proof, “a corporate executive is an employee of the owners of the business,” namely the shareholders.
Come again?
If anyone familiar with even the rudiments of the law were to be asked whether a corporate executive is an employee of the shareholders, the answer would be: clearly not. The executive is an employee of the corporation.
From around the web.
From the web site, Brad DeLong.
But Friedman also produced a less felicitous legacy. In his zeal to promote the power of markets, he drew too sharp a distinction between the market and the state. In effect, he presented government as the enemy of the market. He therefore blinded us to the evident reality that all successful economies are, in fact, mixed. Unfortunately, the world economy is still contending with that blindness in the aftermath of a financial crisis that resulted, in no small part, from letting financial markets run too free.
The Friedmanite perspective greatly underestimates the institutional prerequisites of markets. Let the government simply enforce property rights and contracts, and – presto! – markets can work their magic. In fact, the kind of markets that modern economies need are not self-creating, self-regulating, self-stabilizing, or self-legitimizing. Governments must invest in transport and communication networks; counteract asymmetric information, externalities, and unequal bargaining power; moderate financial panics and recessions; and respond to popular demands for safety nets and social insurance.
From the web site, Reflection to Transformation.
http://theachiever2011.wordpress.com/2011/04/25/shareholder-value-is-the-dumbest-idea-in-the-world/
The birth of the shareholder value movement is commonly traced to a speech Jack Welch gave at New York’s Pierre hotel in 1981, shortly after taking the helm at GE. In that famous speech, entitled “Growing Fast in a Slow-Growth Economy,” Jack Welch outlined his beliefs in selling underperforming businesses and aggressively cutting costs in order to deliver consistent profit rises that would outstrip global economic growth. He told analysts then, “GE will be the locomotive pulling the GNP, not the caboose following it…,” according to reports of the speech.
Jack Welch said in the interview given on 11-March-2009 that he never meant to suggest that setting, and meeting, profit expectations quarter after quarter in an effort to boost a company’s share price should be the main goal of corporate executives.
“It is a dumb idea,” he said. “The idea that shareholder value is a strategy is insane. It is the product of your combined efforts – from the management to the employees”.
What he was talking about is the commonly held belief that the purpose of business is to increase shareholder value. That belief is variously attributed to Milton Friedman, Adam Smith, and perhaps common sense. BUT, it was the operating principle that resulted in two market busts and innumerous scandals in the past decade. The fact that Welch was one of the main proponents certainly adds a fair amount of gravitas to his comments.
Profitability, shareholder value, and measures like economic value added (EVA) completely miss a point that Welch articulated so well. Namely, increased “shareholder value” is a result, not a strategy.
Indentured Servitude or Life as a Temp
The Expendables: How The Temps Who Power Corporate Giants Are Getting Crushed
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/27/workers_n_3511161.html
Across America, temporary work has become a mainstay of the economy, leading to the proliferation of what researchers have begun to call “temp towns.” They are often dense Latino neighborhoods teeming with temp agencies. Or they are cities where it has become nearly impossible even for whites and African-Americans with vocational training to find factory and warehouse work without first being directed to a temp firm.
In June, the Labor Department reported that the nation had more temp workers than ever before: 2.7 million. Overall, almost one-fifth of the total job growth since the recession ended in mid-2009 has been in the temp sector, federal data shows. But according to the American Staffing Association, the temp industry’s trade group, the pool is even larger: Every year, a tenth of all U.S. workers finds a job at a staffing agency.
I strongly believe that we should hold companies responsible for the acts of their subcontractors. These workers are essential to the American economy but are treated little better than lab rats. This kind of indentured servitude while useful for settling agricultural colonies has fewer uses in the modern world except rank exploitation.
It’s hard to be middle class on these kinds of salary. I read a report the other day that this new generation now coming of age is much less likely to buy cars than the previous ones. What a surprise? There are fewer jobs and the jobs pay less. Of course, they won’t be buying as many cars, or anything else. We pay a lot for our low prices at these huge chain stores, perhaps too much.
James Pilant
From around the web.
From the web site, National Staffing Workers Alliance.
The problems of temp/part-time/precarious work isn’t just a problem in
the U.S. our Canadian sisters and brothers are fighting the same fight.
The article below highlights how Government run Liquor Control Board of
Ontario (LCBO) used temp and part time workers and while the workers
struggle with low wages, the LCBO rakes in huge profits (sound
familiar?)
From the web site, Migrants Canada.
http://migrantscanada.wordpress.com/2013/02/05/launch-of-the-temporary-agency-worker-association/
Most of these workers are no longer on the margins of the economy, but
are central to the functioning of the economy. In most where house work,
day-labor in the agricultural sector, food processing, and in the
healthcare sector, agency workers are becoming the Norm. In fact, these
agencies are part of one of the fast growing industries in Québec;
according to Statistics Canada, in 2008 there were approximately 1200
placement agencies across the province, and the industry had an
estimated value of $1 billion.
From the web site, Flip Chart Fairy Tales.
I suspect that similar forces are at work in the market for part-time professionals. A small number of highly marketable people are able to negotiate part-time contracts on very good rates. Some may have more than one part-time job, others may be working as non-exec directors. A few may be wealthy enough not to need to work full-time. Employers tend to be reluctant to employ part-timers in professional jobs so the very fact that people are in such positions may be an indication of their bargaining power.
As ever, skill levels and social factors, rather than types of employment contract, are the key determinants of pay. If you have highly marketable skills, good social support networks and/or affordable child-care and, crucially, powerful and well-placed contacts, you can make the flexible labour market work for you. If you haven’t, you can’t.
The higher up the social hierarchy you are, the more likely you are to be working on part-time or temporary contracts from choice and the more likely those contracts are to be highly lucrative. At the other extreme, part-time and temporary work is poorly paid, precarious and often all you can get. What is a lifestyle choice for some is Hobson’s choice for the rest.
Pilant's Business Ethics Blog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.