My Dear Madame,
I am answering two posts in this one: your previous post on the Yellowed Brick Road and your most recent one.
Your words: “The complexity and sheer size of these multinationals, I think we agree, make it nearly impossible to find out where the actual error, crime, or some combination thereof occurred and at whose feet the blame should be laid. Is it possible that we've created systems so complex and tightly bound in bureaucracy, run by boards and committees instead of individuals, that it is nearly impossible to hold anyone accountable? It seems a very effective tangled web has been woven, making it difficult to even realize when we've been deceived.”
In Tolkien’s words: “But they were all of them deceived.” Evading accountability by claiming all sorts of bureaucratic snafus is fine for run of the mill gum ups, but for the things that matter, there is accountability. The people at the top can make what they want happen when they want to. “No accountability” is a red herring.
They made sure the standards were weak in the first place, and engendered an anti-government dislike of OSHA, which is there to ostensibly protect the safety of the worker. Yet even the slender OSHA standards are usually not enforced, and even when they are, both the “reporting” and the “penalty” are beyond laughable, relying too much on corporate reporting in the first instance, and in the second instance having maximum fines (“serious violations” max fine? $7000) that are so small they are merely a cost (and a minor one at that) of doing business—a cost willingly paid to secure a return many times over. Even if a worker is killed, the maximum criminal penalty is a misdemeanor.
But Deepwater Horizon was not subject to much of even that because, being in international waters, it was conveniently registered to the low-cost, no regulation Marshall Islands. And it just continued a pattern of reckless risks and cutting corners on safety that are a hallmark for the industry and that BP has led. The March 2005 BP refinery explosion in Texas that killed 15 and maimed 170 others? It changed the culture not one bit. Even after the US Chemical Safety Board that investigated said “a combination of cost-cutting, production pressures, and failure to invest caused a progressive deterioration of safety at the refinery,” and a “culture of bad management and failure to recognize and correct problems” were behind it, nothing changed. Recent inspections showed more than 700 safety violations, most of which were the same ones found after the explosion. Even an investigator appointed by BP itself said of top management: “They were very arrogant and proud and in self-denial.” (thanks here goes to the research staff at the Hightower Lowdown, for providing the statistics and excerpts from the reports).
You posted a link to the Exxon Valdez oil spill, and the credit default swaps that were a part of the aftermath. We forget because we don’t want to see. The dealers of the oil-heroin industry pile on disaster after disaster, but like the addicts we are, we just take the discomfort from the bad effects—and pony up all our money.
They framed the argument, and then they waived the “if we go bankrupt, no one and nothing will get paid” phantom. So the government became (or rather, continued to be) the compliant, accommodative partner. Nothing much was said about personal liability, and what little that was got diverted real quick. And of course, the system, like always, considered what happened to be “an isolated incident.”
BP is well on the way to getting the slap on the wrist that Exxon got, maybe even less. Even many of the “investigators” are so tied to either BP or the industry in general, their impartiality and willingness to be tough-minded are laughable. Combine it with our addict’s have-to-have-it-now obsession with oil, and it will be back to “drill, baby, drill,” in no time.
You mentioned that those responsible should be held personally accountable “instead of skating off to Siberia.” Has Siberia turned into a paradise instead of a place of exile? Those crafty Russians! ;) But yes, we do often see those who regulate and oversee in government go to work for the companies in a revolving door that makes a mockery of “overseeing” (more like “underseeing”). Any “policy change” will almost certainly be evaded in one way or another by the members of the corrupt machine.
Oh, we can gradually change behavior over time, and are some; I just think that the scale of our problems means we won’t get out of pain—deep pain—in this way. We have porked the pooch and gradual business as usual won’t cut it.
I mean cold turkey as facing reality: when the path you are on is insanely unsustainable, then quit trying to smoke and mirror away that fact. Face up to it. Tell the people in hard hitting language that this is how we’ve screwed ourselves and it is going to take “this, this, and this” to deal with it. I think deep down people are ready for the truth, because inside they know “there’s something wrong with the world today.”
I hope that you are right about people waking up to the fragility of the system and what is tied to what. That will go a ways toward helping the situation.
“The exhausting shallowness of what we value as a culture; busyness over rest, incessant noise over the quietness needed for deep thinking, and material accumulation over nearly all else. And those corporations you mention, that are working employees more and more thus leaving them less time to think about exactly how all the pieces might fit together may be doing themselves more of a favor than they realize.” Well said Madame!
And you have well demonstrated that figuring out the sensible balance between collective and individual is one of our keenest imperatives. Avoiding the stifling conformity as well as the submergence and subdual of the individual that can come from groupthink, while also preventing the isolating, disconnected, selfishness of excessive individualism? Ah, there’s the rub!
Monday, August 30, 2010
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Re: Seeing Complexity But Not Being Overwhelmed By It
Professor J,
Your first paragraph tempts me to digress into a discussion of the difference between education and training. I am going to show some restraint, however, as we already have a lot on our discussion plate. Rest assured, this topic will be returned to in the future. The things you mention illustrate the exhausting shallowness of what we value as a culture; busyness over rest, incessant noise over the quietness needed for deep thinking, and material accumulation over nearly all else.
You asked, "Are we so in need of simplifying excessively that we need labels and categories for our views?" People do seem to be grasping for ways to gain some basic (simplified) understanding of what is going on (often conveniently offered up by some of the culprits you mention) in the limited time left to them after working all day, helping kids with homework, and paying bills. And those corporations you mention, that are working employees more and more thus leaving them less time to think about exactly how all the pieces might fit together may be doing themselves more of a favor than they realize. To think they understand exactly what they are doing is a diabolical scenario and I don't think it's true, but lurks in the realm of possibility.
As for the Chomkys, Gingriches and their ilk: You can't claim to be the hero/savior unless you can convince people there is someone/thing/organization or idea they need to be saved from and that you or your ideology can provide that. I can think of several organizations that would cease to exist if the problems they claim to be addressing were suddenly "solved". Pretending to seek answers to the problems while stoking the fires all the time to ensure your survival (the first priority of any organization, followed by growth) is a very useful tactic and apparently quite popular on all sides.
So in the future...no labels. Assessing ideas individually for merits or flaws. Very well, then.
I can hardly add anything to your brilliant analysis of the situation and connections between the major players. Most of the problems we are discussing seem to fall within two categories: First,things that could be solved if corporations and our elected officials (the elites) actually cared about solving problems and making things better more than they care about making money and maintaining their place at the power table. Second, issues that could be resolved if we could figure out the proper balance between individual rights and what is good for our communities. How to be part of a healthy, voluntary collective while maintaining individualism and personal rights?
A 2000 study showed that people who thought of themselves as part of a community and valued that sense of belonging were happier than those who thought of themselves as mainly individuals. This is also reflected in the fact that Scandinavian countries always are ranked among the "happiest countries" (along with the fact that basic needs are met and the average income is high by comparison to the rest of the world). Yet I'm reading The Journals of Ayn Rand, and she ponders some of these same issues noting that all great discoveries are made by individuals working alone. On the surface that seems true since she is mainly speaking of the Einsteins and Edisons of the world. Other things like expeditions of discovery we could say were collaborative ventures but even those seem to be driven by the IDEAS of a strong individual or small group.
Side note about Rand: In her journals THE great Capitalist ideologue muses over whether or not size might make a difference and if unregulated giant corporations might trample the individual and give him little recourse against them. At the time she seems to think it will work itself out in favor of the individual but 60 years later if she could see the multinational behemoths that exist I wonder if she would hold to that philosophy.
I'm also thinking over how those strong communities foster a sort of non creative group think that people fall into. If the influence of the "collective" is too strong the individual is stifled and it becomes difficult for him to break away and maintain his own identity. Sometimes the "wisdom" of the group needs to be shaken off so that new thinking can move ahead. The group (and its popular thinking) is a powerful force whether it is wrong or right. It's the rare person who can say to it, "I'm not going that way; I'm going this way and I don't care what the price is." Isn't it so rare in fact that these are the very people history remembers and honors by making sure their names are recorded?
Hmm...how to find and walk the tightrope of balance between the two? It seems that not just this particular discussion but most of ours hinge on finding the answer to this question. Many things seem to connect back to it.
Your first paragraph tempts me to digress into a discussion of the difference between education and training. I am going to show some restraint, however, as we already have a lot on our discussion plate. Rest assured, this topic will be returned to in the future. The things you mention illustrate the exhausting shallowness of what we value as a culture; busyness over rest, incessant noise over the quietness needed for deep thinking, and material accumulation over nearly all else.
You asked, "Are we so in need of simplifying excessively that we need labels and categories for our views?" People do seem to be grasping for ways to gain some basic (simplified) understanding of what is going on (often conveniently offered up by some of the culprits you mention) in the limited time left to them after working all day, helping kids with homework, and paying bills. And those corporations you mention, that are working employees more and more thus leaving them less time to think about exactly how all the pieces might fit together may be doing themselves more of a favor than they realize. To think they understand exactly what they are doing is a diabolical scenario and I don't think it's true, but lurks in the realm of possibility.
As for the Chomkys, Gingriches and their ilk: You can't claim to be the hero/savior unless you can convince people there is someone/thing/organization or idea they need to be saved from and that you or your ideology can provide that. I can think of several organizations that would cease to exist if the problems they claim to be addressing were suddenly "solved". Pretending to seek answers to the problems while stoking the fires all the time to ensure your survival (the first priority of any organization, followed by growth) is a very useful tactic and apparently quite popular on all sides.
So in the future...no labels. Assessing ideas individually for merits or flaws. Very well, then.
I can hardly add anything to your brilliant analysis of the situation and connections between the major players. Most of the problems we are discussing seem to fall within two categories: First,things that could be solved if corporations and our elected officials (the elites) actually cared about solving problems and making things better more than they care about making money and maintaining their place at the power table. Second, issues that could be resolved if we could figure out the proper balance between individual rights and what is good for our communities. How to be part of a healthy, voluntary collective while maintaining individualism and personal rights?
A 2000 study showed that people who thought of themselves as part of a community and valued that sense of belonging were happier than those who thought of themselves as mainly individuals. This is also reflected in the fact that Scandinavian countries always are ranked among the "happiest countries" (along with the fact that basic needs are met and the average income is high by comparison to the rest of the world). Yet I'm reading The Journals of Ayn Rand, and she ponders some of these same issues noting that all great discoveries are made by individuals working alone. On the surface that seems true since she is mainly speaking of the Einsteins and Edisons of the world. Other things like expeditions of discovery we could say were collaborative ventures but even those seem to be driven by the IDEAS of a strong individual or small group.
Side note about Rand: In her journals THE great Capitalist ideologue muses over whether or not size might make a difference and if unregulated giant corporations might trample the individual and give him little recourse against them. At the time she seems to think it will work itself out in favor of the individual but 60 years later if she could see the multinational behemoths that exist I wonder if she would hold to that philosophy.
I'm also thinking over how those strong communities foster a sort of non creative group think that people fall into. If the influence of the "collective" is too strong the individual is stifled and it becomes difficult for him to break away and maintain his own identity. Sometimes the "wisdom" of the group needs to be shaken off so that new thinking can move ahead. The group (and its popular thinking) is a powerful force whether it is wrong or right. It's the rare person who can say to it, "I'm not going that way; I'm going this way and I don't care what the price is." Isn't it so rare in fact that these are the very people history remembers and honors by making sure their names are recorded?
Hmm...how to find and walk the tightrope of balance between the two? It seems that not just this particular discussion but most of ours hinge on finding the answer to this question. Many things seem to connect back to it.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Seeing Complexity But Not Being Overwhelmed By It
Madame M,
Earning a degree without taking any American History? Appalling, as you say, but even many of those who do take it learn next to nothing because the culture says “you don’t have to pay attention, it’s not important; it’s just some silly requirement that has nothing to do with your JOB.” The intellectual and emotional grounding of critically thinking CITIZENS has been washed away in service of churning out channeled and unaware WORKERS. Jefferson and his compatriots, who initiated the thought that only by an appreciation of what you have, and the historical struggles and reasons behind it, will you know, value, and defend your real freedom, would not be comforted.
“Remember it always. For it is the doom of men that they forget.” Merlin, in “Excalibur.”
Fascism OF TEA Party members? Not the inference. The fascism fear is from fearing the result of manipulated and frustrated real fears and concerns, not present day membership in any particular organization. However, the word “liberal” is tossed around like an epithet by TEA Partiers just a little too, well, liberally, for my tastes. It hints at knee-jerk ideology and parochialism. Labels are often meaningless and divisive.
It is important to connect to the ideals of the founders, but the zealous extremist portion of the patriots of the colonial period should perhaps not always be the model. Many of them were a bit hypocritical and selfish in many respects, and in any event it wasn’t so much the amount of taxation (at first), but the fact that the taxation was an internal one, and without suitable representation (although even suitable representation probably wouldn't have been enough).
Being deeply concerned about the rate of spending and the deficit is quite appropriate. But if such things remain general only, without specifics, they become worse than useless.
But we need to stay focused on living within our means and economic health (especially needing to reward the truly productive so they will be even more so; in short, to incent the right behavior and disincent unproductive behavior). Our historical disdain repeatedly bites us, and increasingly critically and painfully. The Cold War demonstrated that it doesn’t matter how much your military is (or appears to be) capable of, if the underlying economy is not sound, it doesn’t matter for long.
The three core values of the TEA party are spot on. The last one about free enterprise needs expounding or perhaps qualifying however, as the corporate-dominated model has choked much of its progression and perhaps much of its validity or even possibility.
Are we so in need of simplifying excessively that we need labels and categories for our views? Those are what polarize and turn us against each other. And stop real dialogue. The preconceived notion sabotages us. What people THINK they know (often insufficiently or even incorrectly) gets our culture an us vs. them mentality. Why do we need a description of peoples' beliefs? How about just listening to what they say without pre-filters or dismissive categorization at the ready? The dilemma you have identified is self-defeating: we want to simplify and categorize others, but don’t want that same methodology applied to us. Exactly one of the problems, so why do it?
Chomsky and Gingrich and others are only too glad to stand in their intellecutal-emotional communities and close their gates in self-assurance—and maybe even a bit of self-righteousness. They are being lazy and divisive. Sometimes I think they even like having an opponent (even a general one) to vilify.
Labels don't serve us very well. For instance, people like to cry “Socialism” in a knee-jerk, uninformed, and even hypocritical fashion. The term is too loosely used. For instance, cooperatives are a bit socialist, but you won’t hear many people (especially “anti-socialist” farmers) discussing that, because it is the “right” kind of socialism. You don’t even hear many people saying that Social Security (it’s right in the name!) or Medicare are socialist, because most of those who are “anti-socialist” are for both of those programs. And the Democrats are painted with the term “socialist” when it doesn’t apply. The most right-wing parties in Europe are more socialist than the American Democratic party (which has certain socialist-LIKE proclivities, but doesn’t qualify by political science definition). So where does this zealous language come from? Perfectly playing on fears and other emotions, those who want to stay dominant (the wealthy, cough, “elites”) define the lexicon for the average person they exploit! Just like the poor white farmers of the Antebellum South were brilliantly manipulated by the small plantation class into helping their system, when the poor white farmers didn’t even like the plantation owners!
Our polarizing, divisive language is not only a lack of civility, it is too often a deliberate attempt to demonize those whose policies you disagree with. The American Democrats are a widely varying bunch that for the most part believe in a bigger government and that government needs to smooth out the rough edges of capitalism. Having those views might make them misguided, depending on policy preference, but that does not make them Karl Marx, or even Eugene Debs. American Republicans might hold preferences for more accommodating treatment of businesses and preservation of traditional social expressions. That might make them coddlers, depending on policy preference, but it does not make them Warren Harding clones or agents of the Ku Klux Klan.
The infuriating fixation on “right” or “left” masks the true parameters of American economics and politics: top to bottom. I agree with Hightower that true dissatisfaction with that reality is being twisted by corporate fronts into a hatred of government, which is classic diversion, classic misinformation, and classic “noise” jamming. With the result that private interest is elevated above public. Weak government is the ultimate goal of corporatism, for it allows corporations to escape the one power—the people through its representatives and executive agents—that can slap them down. Right now, the plutocrats have abandoned everyone else and told everyone to get used to a new kind of economy. No one of worth gets arrested for their corporate crimes unless their fellows offer them up as sacrificial lambs. The corporations and their top folks work the world over for “market-friendly” governments to “enrich the rich further at the expense of labor” (in the very words of their own strategists and economists). In fact, the corporations and their top folks benefit from the increases in worker productivity; the workers largely don’t. The top executives and board members’ arrogance and greed crush our chances of doing anything to help ourselves if we continue to play by their rules or believe their lies (and even though not all corporations and executives are as described, the number of exceptions who have power and influence appear small). Populist, progressive, I don’t care what my thinking that “labels” me, I just know it needs to be addressed openly.
And here is the dilemma. Yes, government has grown far too big and unsustainable, mostly in entitlements of one form or another, but certainly in bureaucracy as well. And it needs to be reined in and the true drags on the producers reduced dramatically. Yet it can’t be done in such a fashion as to leave we, the people, naked before the awesome economic and political might of the plutocrats.
The legitimate desire to keep the nation and state out of people's lives has been manipulated by those who have another agenda. So when people express a natural desire for less regulation (because more than just a bit of that can be stifling as all hell), corporations and the plutocrats that run them then push this natural desire into something they want: no meaningful oversight, restrictions, or repercussions. BP and Wall Street didn’t want oversight; their resulting behavior and the effect on the rest of us is a look at what zealously demanding no regulation can get us.
Earning a degree without taking any American History? Appalling, as you say, but even many of those who do take it learn next to nothing because the culture says “you don’t have to pay attention, it’s not important; it’s just some silly requirement that has nothing to do with your JOB.” The intellectual and emotional grounding of critically thinking CITIZENS has been washed away in service of churning out channeled and unaware WORKERS. Jefferson and his compatriots, who initiated the thought that only by an appreciation of what you have, and the historical struggles and reasons behind it, will you know, value, and defend your real freedom, would not be comforted.
“Remember it always. For it is the doom of men that they forget.” Merlin, in “Excalibur.”
Fascism OF TEA Party members? Not the inference. The fascism fear is from fearing the result of manipulated and frustrated real fears and concerns, not present day membership in any particular organization. However, the word “liberal” is tossed around like an epithet by TEA Partiers just a little too, well, liberally, for my tastes. It hints at knee-jerk ideology and parochialism. Labels are often meaningless and divisive.
It is important to connect to the ideals of the founders, but the zealous extremist portion of the patriots of the colonial period should perhaps not always be the model. Many of them were a bit hypocritical and selfish in many respects, and in any event it wasn’t so much the amount of taxation (at first), but the fact that the taxation was an internal one, and without suitable representation (although even suitable representation probably wouldn't have been enough).
Being deeply concerned about the rate of spending and the deficit is quite appropriate. But if such things remain general only, without specifics, they become worse than useless.
But we need to stay focused on living within our means and economic health (especially needing to reward the truly productive so they will be even more so; in short, to incent the right behavior and disincent unproductive behavior). Our historical disdain repeatedly bites us, and increasingly critically and painfully. The Cold War demonstrated that it doesn’t matter how much your military is (or appears to be) capable of, if the underlying economy is not sound, it doesn’t matter for long.
The three core values of the TEA party are spot on. The last one about free enterprise needs expounding or perhaps qualifying however, as the corporate-dominated model has choked much of its progression and perhaps much of its validity or even possibility.
Are we so in need of simplifying excessively that we need labels and categories for our views? Those are what polarize and turn us against each other. And stop real dialogue. The preconceived notion sabotages us. What people THINK they know (often insufficiently or even incorrectly) gets our culture an us vs. them mentality. Why do we need a description of peoples' beliefs? How about just listening to what they say without pre-filters or dismissive categorization at the ready? The dilemma you have identified is self-defeating: we want to simplify and categorize others, but don’t want that same methodology applied to us. Exactly one of the problems, so why do it?
Chomsky and Gingrich and others are only too glad to stand in their intellecutal-emotional communities and close their gates in self-assurance—and maybe even a bit of self-righteousness. They are being lazy and divisive. Sometimes I think they even like having an opponent (even a general one) to vilify.
Labels don't serve us very well. For instance, people like to cry “Socialism” in a knee-jerk, uninformed, and even hypocritical fashion. The term is too loosely used. For instance, cooperatives are a bit socialist, but you won’t hear many people (especially “anti-socialist” farmers) discussing that, because it is the “right” kind of socialism. You don’t even hear many people saying that Social Security (it’s right in the name!) or Medicare are socialist, because most of those who are “anti-socialist” are for both of those programs. And the Democrats are painted with the term “socialist” when it doesn’t apply. The most right-wing parties in Europe are more socialist than the American Democratic party (which has certain socialist-LIKE proclivities, but doesn’t qualify by political science definition). So where does this zealous language come from? Perfectly playing on fears and other emotions, those who want to stay dominant (the wealthy, cough, “elites”) define the lexicon for the average person they exploit! Just like the poor white farmers of the Antebellum South were brilliantly manipulated by the small plantation class into helping their system, when the poor white farmers didn’t even like the plantation owners!
Our polarizing, divisive language is not only a lack of civility, it is too often a deliberate attempt to demonize those whose policies you disagree with. The American Democrats are a widely varying bunch that for the most part believe in a bigger government and that government needs to smooth out the rough edges of capitalism. Having those views might make them misguided, depending on policy preference, but that does not make them Karl Marx, or even Eugene Debs. American Republicans might hold preferences for more accommodating treatment of businesses and preservation of traditional social expressions. That might make them coddlers, depending on policy preference, but it does not make them Warren Harding clones or agents of the Ku Klux Klan.
The infuriating fixation on “right” or “left” masks the true parameters of American economics and politics: top to bottom. I agree with Hightower that true dissatisfaction with that reality is being twisted by corporate fronts into a hatred of government, which is classic diversion, classic misinformation, and classic “noise” jamming. With the result that private interest is elevated above public. Weak government is the ultimate goal of corporatism, for it allows corporations to escape the one power—the people through its representatives and executive agents—that can slap them down. Right now, the plutocrats have abandoned everyone else and told everyone to get used to a new kind of economy. No one of worth gets arrested for their corporate crimes unless their fellows offer them up as sacrificial lambs. The corporations and their top folks work the world over for “market-friendly” governments to “enrich the rich further at the expense of labor” (in the very words of their own strategists and economists). In fact, the corporations and their top folks benefit from the increases in worker productivity; the workers largely don’t. The top executives and board members’ arrogance and greed crush our chances of doing anything to help ourselves if we continue to play by their rules or believe their lies (and even though not all corporations and executives are as described, the number of exceptions who have power and influence appear small). Populist, progressive, I don’t care what my thinking that “labels” me, I just know it needs to be addressed openly.
And here is the dilemma. Yes, government has grown far too big and unsustainable, mostly in entitlements of one form or another, but certainly in bureaucracy as well. And it needs to be reined in and the true drags on the producers reduced dramatically. Yet it can’t be done in such a fashion as to leave we, the people, naked before the awesome economic and political might of the plutocrats.
The legitimate desire to keep the nation and state out of people's lives has been manipulated by those who have another agenda. So when people express a natural desire for less regulation (because more than just a bit of that can be stifling as all hell), corporations and the plutocrats that run them then push this natural desire into something they want: no meaningful oversight, restrictions, or repercussions. BP and Wall Street didn’t want oversight; their resulting behavior and the effect on the rest of us is a look at what zealously demanding no regulation can get us.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Yellowed Brick Road? Ick.
Professor J,
Don't eat the snow on the Yellow(ed) Brick Road...got it. lol
Perhaps we have a misunderstanding, I'm not referring to all regulation as punishment, but what concerns me about additional regulation at this point would be that there hasn't been a thorough investigation (I hardly think that the blame passing fiasco masquerading as a Congressional hearing we have seen could be called a serious investigation, let alone thorough). I was referring to additional regulation being added based only on speculation about what went wrong.
I do like to give people the benefit of the doubt. It is easy to toss the blame on the guy who is getting paid the most money and has the big title (and yes, being held ultimately responsible comes with, or should). I think that is too simple, though. Who to blame is only one part of the question. Isn't part of the problem also the corporate culture (the atmosphere of which, the CEO and board, create and are ultimately responsible for)? Greedy top executives and their minions may indeed be guilty of criminal negligence that resulted in the deaths of eleven people along with the eco-tragedy. I can't help but wonder if there isn't a small person who went unheard in all of this; a worker on the rig or an engineer. I don't mean "small" in any sense of one's innate worth, but rather, the lack of power he wields in the grand scheme of things. I'd like to know how this company handles complaints and concerns from the people "on the ground" and what their record is on how they deal with whistle blowers, or when the last time production was held up over safety concerns was. It seems extremely likely to me that someone at some point has probably raised concerns about what they've seen or knew was going on. Most large companies do not handle those situations well and even the ever popular "open door policy" is generally a sham. For a company to have a genuine desire to behave responsibly, and give even low level employees the freedom to question policies and procedures and raise concerns, is rare and may indeed be too much to ask. To hope for such a thing may mean that I am now operating on a fantasy level equal to yours.
The complexity and sheer size of these multinationals, I think we agree, make it nearly impossible to find out where the actual error, crime, or some combination thereof occurred and at whose feet the blame should be laid. Is it possible that we've created systems so complex and tightly bound in bureaucracy, run by boards and committees instead of individuals, that it is nearly impossible to hold anyone accountable? It seems a very effective tangled web has been woven, making it difficult to even realize when we've been deceived.
I'm posting here a link to an article about the Exxon Valdez oil spill and the birth of credit default swaps that you mentioned in your previous post, in case anyone else besides me didn't already know this.
I don't disagree with anything in your proposed solution, I think proper oversight, enforcement of existing regulation, and changes so that those responsible would be held personally accountable (instead of skating off to Siberia with a big bag of money) would go a long way in the right direction. Good luck with that. Don't we often see people in some of these government oversight positions eventually run off to work for the oil companies? Best not to get too testy with them then, or you may be out of a posh job later on, conflict of interest be damned (It seems I recently heard that policy was changed to prevent this, but I've lost track of that discussion).
Another question: You dismiss the idea of our gradually changing our behavior over time, even though we are seeing some progress, though not enough to abate your sense of urgency. You said, "Addicts rarely taper down to success, even with help. Cold turkey is still the most effective long-term behavior changer, primarily because of its completeness and its searing agony." Now "Worst Case Scenario Girl's" brain is running amok envisioning what you mean here. Could you clarify? Specifically, do you mean cold turkey as a planned action imposed by someone in power, or a natural occurrence? Don't bother elaborating on the "searing agony"; unfortunately I have a very vivid image of what that might look like.
The problem of the world we've created is that so few of us are, in any meaningful way, self sufficient, and therefore at the mercy of those with real power, which your movie (one of my favorites)'s quote so chillingly illustrates.
The fragility of the system we've created is disturbing. The oil is tied not only to food production in a massive way (several campaigns are underway to call attention to that and change thinking), but to food distribution. I think people subconsciously know this, even if they haven't consciously thought of it. It's probably part of that underlying feeling we have that something built into the system is very scary and our interdependent lifestyles are precarious. The full realization of just how little disturbance it would take for that complex network to collapse and what it would mean for our collective psyche (especially when so few have entertained such possibilities), not to mention the physical reality, would be perhaps the most agonizing of all.
Oh Professor! Our discussions always cheer me so!
Don't eat the snow on the Yellow(ed) Brick Road...got it. lol
Perhaps we have a misunderstanding, I'm not referring to all regulation as punishment, but what concerns me about additional regulation at this point would be that there hasn't been a thorough investigation (I hardly think that the blame passing fiasco masquerading as a Congressional hearing we have seen could be called a serious investigation, let alone thorough). I was referring to additional regulation being added based only on speculation about what went wrong.
I do like to give people the benefit of the doubt. It is easy to toss the blame on the guy who is getting paid the most money and has the big title (and yes, being held ultimately responsible comes with, or should). I think that is too simple, though. Who to blame is only one part of the question. Isn't part of the problem also the corporate culture (the atmosphere of which, the CEO and board, create and are ultimately responsible for)? Greedy top executives and their minions may indeed be guilty of criminal negligence that resulted in the deaths of eleven people along with the eco-tragedy. I can't help but wonder if there isn't a small person who went unheard in all of this; a worker on the rig or an engineer. I don't mean "small" in any sense of one's innate worth, but rather, the lack of power he wields in the grand scheme of things. I'd like to know how this company handles complaints and concerns from the people "on the ground" and what their record is on how they deal with whistle blowers, or when the last time production was held up over safety concerns was. It seems extremely likely to me that someone at some point has probably raised concerns about what they've seen or knew was going on. Most large companies do not handle those situations well and even the ever popular "open door policy" is generally a sham. For a company to have a genuine desire to behave responsibly, and give even low level employees the freedom to question policies and procedures and raise concerns, is rare and may indeed be too much to ask. To hope for such a thing may mean that I am now operating on a fantasy level equal to yours.
The complexity and sheer size of these multinationals, I think we agree, make it nearly impossible to find out where the actual error, crime, or some combination thereof occurred and at whose feet the blame should be laid. Is it possible that we've created systems so complex and tightly bound in bureaucracy, run by boards and committees instead of individuals, that it is nearly impossible to hold anyone accountable? It seems a very effective tangled web has been woven, making it difficult to even realize when we've been deceived.
I'm posting here a link to an article about the Exxon Valdez oil spill and the birth of credit default swaps that you mentioned in your previous post, in case anyone else besides me didn't already know this.
I don't disagree with anything in your proposed solution, I think proper oversight, enforcement of existing regulation, and changes so that those responsible would be held personally accountable (instead of skating off to Siberia with a big bag of money) would go a long way in the right direction. Good luck with that. Don't we often see people in some of these government oversight positions eventually run off to work for the oil companies? Best not to get too testy with them then, or you may be out of a posh job later on, conflict of interest be damned (It seems I recently heard that policy was changed to prevent this, but I've lost track of that discussion).
Another question: You dismiss the idea of our gradually changing our behavior over time, even though we are seeing some progress, though not enough to abate your sense of urgency. You said, "Addicts rarely taper down to success, even with help. Cold turkey is still the most effective long-term behavior changer, primarily because of its completeness and its searing agony." Now "Worst Case Scenario Girl's" brain is running amok envisioning what you mean here. Could you clarify? Specifically, do you mean cold turkey as a planned action imposed by someone in power, or a natural occurrence? Don't bother elaborating on the "searing agony"; unfortunately I have a very vivid image of what that might look like.
The problem of the world we've created is that so few of us are, in any meaningful way, self sufficient, and therefore at the mercy of those with real power, which your movie (one of my favorites)'s quote so chillingly illustrates.
The fragility of the system we've created is disturbing. The oil is tied not only to food production in a massive way (several campaigns are underway to call attention to that and change thinking), but to food distribution. I think people subconsciously know this, even if they haven't consciously thought of it. It's probably part of that underlying feeling we have that something built into the system is very scary and our interdependent lifestyles are precarious. The full realization of just how little disturbance it would take for that complex network to collapse and what it would mean for our collective psyche (especially when so few have entertained such possibilities), not to mention the physical reality, would be perhaps the most agonizing of all.
Oh Professor! Our discussions always cheer me so!
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
D-Tour: All Access Pass or One-Way Street?
Professor J,
...or is it now The Great Oz, or Professor Marvel? LOL
You are so kind, as usual, to give such thorough answers to my questions. I did, however find them somewhat brief.
"It is more likely that a place that grew out of at least an initial struggle and desire for freedom and individual liberty will have different reactions to crises than one that came out of a feudal system. However, that difference may only be for a while." Your statement seems to me to be a very good indication of the importance of an education in history as we seem to have short memories. The distance between the actual events and where we are now might be handy for the "elites" in their quest to pull power in their direction. As I've mentioned before, it's hard not to think that students foregoing historical education en masse is a real danger, but possibly one put in place by design. How much easier to mislead the public when the people are unaware of their birthright of liberty. The watering it down and breaking it up into particular groups (e.g., Women's Studies) probably proves a useful tool. That isn't to say that studying particular segments of the population and their part in history isn't important or worth study, only that those courses should not be replacing a thorough study of the ideas that shaped our country and its founding documents. It is common now for students to earn degrees without taking any American History at all, which I find appalling. I wonder what Jefferson and his compatriots would think of us.
I appreciate your explanation of why fascism strikes fear in the hearts of many, but I think much of that feeling is unwarranted in relation to the TEA Party members. One of the most difficult things for a group of Libertarians, Constitutionalists, and TEA Party supporters is for them to reach out to anyone, even each other, and organize. They are wary of too much organization and centralization. The anti-war activists and others that Chomsky thinks they should team up with are much better at that. The fear of being "used" and losing autonomy, or giving one person too much power, or even making one person a "spokesperson," makes those who prefer self reliance and a strong emphasis on the individual, extremely uncomfortable. The thing that makes them appealing to many also makes them somewhat ineffective, which is part of Chomsky's point, I think.
To see how the TEA Party folks break down demographically here is a recent Gallup Poll.
Just as I was about to launch into a more detailed description of the TEA partiers, a couple of USA Today journalists have done their job and provided an extremely fair portrayal of them in this article: Tea Party Activists Speak Out. I appreciate them going to the source. You mentioned that you think they over emphasize taxation but some of that is due to the fact that they have connected strongly to the ideals of the founders and have found a sort of theme/image that is tied to the original Tea Party. Now that I think of it, Mr. Chomsky might also have referred to those activities as "shenanigans" (so perhaps I have been too hard on him). The things that most upset them aren't the taxes necessarily, but the rate of spending and the deficit.
Here's what Chris Littleton, a co-founder of the Cincinnati TEA party movement had to say on this in USA Today:
"We have three core values that really, I guess, span everything we do. ... One, a fundamental limitation of government. The limited government is key. We believe that the more control and influence the size of government, the more it grows, the less important the individual is. ... "And then the next would be fiscal responsibility. There is no excuse in the world why our government can’t be fiscally responsible. ... "And the last one is free markets or you could call it free enterprise. The ability to earn your own way, to generate your own wealth, to create your own American dream, should be relatively free from all of the inhibitions of the government."
A bit of housekeeping:
I know how much you dislike the terms Right/Left and I understand why. You and I would agree that most people (if they are giving any serious thought to these issues) are not completely agreeing with one side or the other. Most are probably like myself and would have to say that there isn't anyone with whom I can agree completely. My question is this: What would you have us use instead? When we say Left/Right people know in general what we mean (although it is simplified in the extreme, sometimes unfair, and as you say, lazy). It seems a bit much to expect a lengthy description of everyone's individual beliefs, though I do dislike lumping everyone together, and I certainly don't like it when it is done to me. So Professor, have you a solution to offer; and what to do with those like Chomsky on the left or Gingrich on the right, who use those terms in reference to themselves?
...or is it now The Great Oz, or Professor Marvel? LOL
You are so kind, as usual, to give such thorough answers to my questions. I did, however find them somewhat brief.
"It is more likely that a place that grew out of at least an initial struggle and desire for freedom and individual liberty will have different reactions to crises than one that came out of a feudal system. However, that difference may only be for a while." Your statement seems to me to be a very good indication of the importance of an education in history as we seem to have short memories. The distance between the actual events and where we are now might be handy for the "elites" in their quest to pull power in their direction. As I've mentioned before, it's hard not to think that students foregoing historical education en masse is a real danger, but possibly one put in place by design. How much easier to mislead the public when the people are unaware of their birthright of liberty. The watering it down and breaking it up into particular groups (e.g., Women's Studies) probably proves a useful tool. That isn't to say that studying particular segments of the population and their part in history isn't important or worth study, only that those courses should not be replacing a thorough study of the ideas that shaped our country and its founding documents. It is common now for students to earn degrees without taking any American History at all, which I find appalling. I wonder what Jefferson and his compatriots would think of us.
I appreciate your explanation of why fascism strikes fear in the hearts of many, but I think much of that feeling is unwarranted in relation to the TEA Party members. One of the most difficult things for a group of Libertarians, Constitutionalists, and TEA Party supporters is for them to reach out to anyone, even each other, and organize. They are wary of too much organization and centralization. The anti-war activists and others that Chomsky thinks they should team up with are much better at that. The fear of being "used" and losing autonomy, or giving one person too much power, or even making one person a "spokesperson," makes those who prefer self reliance and a strong emphasis on the individual, extremely uncomfortable. The thing that makes them appealing to many also makes them somewhat ineffective, which is part of Chomsky's point, I think.
To see how the TEA Party folks break down demographically here is a recent Gallup Poll.
Just as I was about to launch into a more detailed description of the TEA partiers, a couple of USA Today journalists have done their job and provided an extremely fair portrayal of them in this article: Tea Party Activists Speak Out. I appreciate them going to the source. You mentioned that you think they over emphasize taxation but some of that is due to the fact that they have connected strongly to the ideals of the founders and have found a sort of theme/image that is tied to the original Tea Party. Now that I think of it, Mr. Chomsky might also have referred to those activities as "shenanigans" (so perhaps I have been too hard on him). The things that most upset them aren't the taxes necessarily, but the rate of spending and the deficit.
Here's what Chris Littleton, a co-founder of the Cincinnati TEA party movement had to say on this in USA Today:
"We have three core values that really, I guess, span everything we do. ... One, a fundamental limitation of government. The limited government is key. We believe that the more control and influence the size of government, the more it grows, the less important the individual is. ... "And then the next would be fiscal responsibility. There is no excuse in the world why our government can’t be fiscally responsible. ... "And the last one is free markets or you could call it free enterprise. The ability to earn your own way, to generate your own wealth, to create your own American dream, should be relatively free from all of the inhibitions of the government."
A bit of housekeeping:
I know how much you dislike the terms Right/Left and I understand why. You and I would agree that most people (if they are giving any serious thought to these issues) are not completely agreeing with one side or the other. Most are probably like myself and would have to say that there isn't anyone with whom I can agree completely. My question is this: What would you have us use instead? When we say Left/Right people know in general what we mean (although it is simplified in the extreme, sometimes unfair, and as you say, lazy). It seems a bit much to expect a lengthy description of everyone's individual beliefs, though I do dislike lumping everyone together, and I certainly don't like it when it is done to me. So Professor, have you a solution to offer; and what to do with those like Chomsky on the left or Gingrich on the right, who use those terms in reference to themselves?
Sunday, August 15, 2010
What If It's The Yellowed Brick Road?
Madame M,
Not hard to feel that corporate mongrels and their fellow pack members and camp followers are too often lifting their legs on the people. :)
You state that you can only punish specific behavior and demand accountability after the fact. I am not sure what you are arguing; can you clarify? Why would you punish before the fact? Or are you considering any regulation “punishment?” And if so, are basic traffic laws, and requirements to expend time, energy, and money in learning and becoming proficient and demonstrating that about those laws through tests, also “punishment” in this defintion?
Regulation did previously exist, but had been gutted over several years. And what regulation there was had a drastic decrease in monitors or enforcers, and political-economic influence to further reduce or divert emphasis (further demonstrating the choking power of corporatism). There is a saying in both government and business that “what gets monitored and measured, gets accomplished, and often accomplished better.” There was little real monitoring or measurement in the case we are discussing.
Given that BP is one of the oil-heroin dealers that our addictive society depends on, we the people and the society already start at a deep disadvantage. An older film depicts that nicely. One of the top CIA officials is defending dirty tricks and corruption to a CIA employee with a conscience:
CIA official: It's simple economics. Today it's oil, right? In ten or fifteen years, food,,,Maybe even sooner. Now, what do you think the people are gonna want us to do then?
Employee: Ask them?
CIA official: Not now - then! Ask 'em when they're running out. Ask 'em when there's no heat in their homes and they're cold. Ask 'em when their engines stop. Ask 'em when people who have never known hunger start going hungry. You wanna know something? They won't want us to ask 'em. They'll just want us to get it for 'em!
“Three Days of the Condor.”
Of course, no one can predict the results of ALL contemplated actions, even with the most sincere effort. But we seem to be predicting few significant results, and the “efforts” seem both deficient and often anything but sincere.
$20B, if that actually materializes, is a one-time cost. And none of the individuals paid for it personally; it didn’t even much affect their salary/bonus/benefits. That’s a problem with “lessons” for corporations, or punishing “their” behavior. They are a fictional entity in that their pain (gain’s another story!), especially in a world where real control has been assumed by tightly woven, inter-connected boards and individuals, seldom becomes reality for the executives at the top.
Consumers have, at best, a mixed record of influencing corporate behavior. Not only are our memories very short-term, but in our maniacally-paced society, most people can’t take the stressful complication, or the time, to worry, let alone actually, DO something about things in the specific. They might give their money in general to places or money managers that behave or invest responsibly (witness the rise in socially responsible investing), but only the truly dedicated do much more than that.
And lessons? It has barely been 20 years since Exxon Valdez. And here we are, having ‘learned”…what? And that incident, while it cost Exxon several months to a year or so of profit, not only put into play the first credit default swap (precursor of the infamous “derivatives”), but got appealed in litigation so much that the system eventually mitigated most damage that Exxon might take (another example of who holds real power), and Exxon went on to make record profits. I think the other companies learned an obvious lesson from that.
You said you would like me to outline a solution I would like to see:
The solution, maybe a fantasy one, would see corporate law and regulation changed dramatically, primarily in the arena of personal accountability, and the enforcement of existing law and regulation about this. These days, the “corporate veil” (which is not an unsound idea in and of itself) is rarely pierced by the judicial system for criminal liability, and almost never pierced for anything else, to financially or otherwise punish the arrogantly disdainful and near-utterly disconnected managements and boards who inflict the colossal damage we’ve been discussing. It would also be nice if our legislators and executive agents actually held managements and boards truly accountable, but again, that would be a bit like asking a bribed judge to hold Tammany Hall accountable. This idea that corporations should have the same First Amendment protections that individuals have has also made a terrible travesty of true justice.
And now that the spill has been supposedly “plugged,” our short-term, emergency only fixations, along with our short-term memories and lack of valuing history, will mean we will be on to something else, when of course the economic and environmental effects will last many many years. But the urge to do something positive and deter future occurrences? Getting smaller by the day.
Ah, “gradual adjustment.” Yes, that esoterica. They have been talking for 40 years of “getting off oil,” and “the plan down the road.” It is the sort of vagueness that serves only to continue one/us in the same racing lane toward what may not be ASSUREDLY the road to ruin, but which assuredly is one of steep and unnecessary pain.
Addicts rarely taper down to success, even with help. Cold turkey is still the most effective long-term behavior changer, primarily because of its completeness and its searing agony. People and society will get creative, and get motivated and energized, when they are getting proverbially slapped hard, especially if they are getting slapped in both the pocketbook and lifestyle. That’s how paradigms and cultures change relatively rapidly. Leaving it to gradualism may not be a viable option anymore.
You see ridiculous stupidity, of which there is a great deal. I see even more monstrous selfishness and even criminality. You are willing to go far in giving BP and the others the benefit of the doubt. I am not. They are part of the corpocracy. Their spin cover is very good, their shadowy and not so shadowy control of the political system even better. Their ability to flood the information stream with red herrings, misinformation, and just general “noise” is truly impressive. And they like to trumpet the Harvard Business Model a little too much—and so does Harvard, which has not only done its “independence” no favors, but become in too many ways part and parcel of the corporate culture (and sometimes led the way in forming things of that culture).
Learning relatively lasting lessons is a problem in American culture. Whether it is interventions that bear too much resemblance to past ones (and with too many of the same effects), or economic-political decisions (Savings and Loan scandal anyone?), our status as an ahistorical culture continues to hurt us.
Not hard to feel that corporate mongrels and their fellow pack members and camp followers are too often lifting their legs on the people. :)
You state that you can only punish specific behavior and demand accountability after the fact. I am not sure what you are arguing; can you clarify? Why would you punish before the fact? Or are you considering any regulation “punishment?” And if so, are basic traffic laws, and requirements to expend time, energy, and money in learning and becoming proficient and demonstrating that about those laws through tests, also “punishment” in this defintion?
Regulation did previously exist, but had been gutted over several years. And what regulation there was had a drastic decrease in monitors or enforcers, and political-economic influence to further reduce or divert emphasis (further demonstrating the choking power of corporatism). There is a saying in both government and business that “what gets monitored and measured, gets accomplished, and often accomplished better.” There was little real monitoring or measurement in the case we are discussing.
Given that BP is one of the oil-heroin dealers that our addictive society depends on, we the people and the society already start at a deep disadvantage. An older film depicts that nicely. One of the top CIA officials is defending dirty tricks and corruption to a CIA employee with a conscience:
CIA official: It's simple economics. Today it's oil, right? In ten or fifteen years, food,,,Maybe even sooner. Now, what do you think the people are gonna want us to do then?
Employee: Ask them?
CIA official: Not now - then! Ask 'em when they're running out. Ask 'em when there's no heat in their homes and they're cold. Ask 'em when their engines stop. Ask 'em when people who have never known hunger start going hungry. You wanna know something? They won't want us to ask 'em. They'll just want us to get it for 'em!
“Three Days of the Condor.”
Of course, no one can predict the results of ALL contemplated actions, even with the most sincere effort. But we seem to be predicting few significant results, and the “efforts” seem both deficient and often anything but sincere.
$20B, if that actually materializes, is a one-time cost. And none of the individuals paid for it personally; it didn’t even much affect their salary/bonus/benefits. That’s a problem with “lessons” for corporations, or punishing “their” behavior. They are a fictional entity in that their pain (gain’s another story!), especially in a world where real control has been assumed by tightly woven, inter-connected boards and individuals, seldom becomes reality for the executives at the top.
Consumers have, at best, a mixed record of influencing corporate behavior. Not only are our memories very short-term, but in our maniacally-paced society, most people can’t take the stressful complication, or the time, to worry, let alone actually, DO something about things in the specific. They might give their money in general to places or money managers that behave or invest responsibly (witness the rise in socially responsible investing), but only the truly dedicated do much more than that.
And lessons? It has barely been 20 years since Exxon Valdez. And here we are, having ‘learned”…what? And that incident, while it cost Exxon several months to a year or so of profit, not only put into play the first credit default swap (precursor of the infamous “derivatives”), but got appealed in litigation so much that the system eventually mitigated most damage that Exxon might take (another example of who holds real power), and Exxon went on to make record profits. I think the other companies learned an obvious lesson from that.
You said you would like me to outline a solution I would like to see:
The solution, maybe a fantasy one, would see corporate law and regulation changed dramatically, primarily in the arena of personal accountability, and the enforcement of existing law and regulation about this. These days, the “corporate veil” (which is not an unsound idea in and of itself) is rarely pierced by the judicial system for criminal liability, and almost never pierced for anything else, to financially or otherwise punish the arrogantly disdainful and near-utterly disconnected managements and boards who inflict the colossal damage we’ve been discussing. It would also be nice if our legislators and executive agents actually held managements and boards truly accountable, but again, that would be a bit like asking a bribed judge to hold Tammany Hall accountable. This idea that corporations should have the same First Amendment protections that individuals have has also made a terrible travesty of true justice.
And now that the spill has been supposedly “plugged,” our short-term, emergency only fixations, along with our short-term memories and lack of valuing history, will mean we will be on to something else, when of course the economic and environmental effects will last many many years. But the urge to do something positive and deter future occurrences? Getting smaller by the day.
Ah, “gradual adjustment.” Yes, that esoterica. They have been talking for 40 years of “getting off oil,” and “the plan down the road.” It is the sort of vagueness that serves only to continue one/us in the same racing lane toward what may not be ASSUREDLY the road to ruin, but which assuredly is one of steep and unnecessary pain.
Addicts rarely taper down to success, even with help. Cold turkey is still the most effective long-term behavior changer, primarily because of its completeness and its searing agony. People and society will get creative, and get motivated and energized, when they are getting proverbially slapped hard, especially if they are getting slapped in both the pocketbook and lifestyle. That’s how paradigms and cultures change relatively rapidly. Leaving it to gradualism may not be a viable option anymore.
You see ridiculous stupidity, of which there is a great deal. I see even more monstrous selfishness and even criminality. You are willing to go far in giving BP and the others the benefit of the doubt. I am not. They are part of the corpocracy. Their spin cover is very good, their shadowy and not so shadowy control of the political system even better. Their ability to flood the information stream with red herrings, misinformation, and just general “noise” is truly impressive. And they like to trumpet the Harvard Business Model a little too much—and so does Harvard, which has not only done its “independence” no favors, but become in too many ways part and parcel of the corporate culture (and sometimes led the way in forming things of that culture).
Learning relatively lasting lessons is a problem in American culture. Whether it is interventions that bear too much resemblance to past ones (and with too many of the same effects), or economic-political decisions (Savings and Loan scandal anyone?), our status as an ahistorical culture continues to hurt us.
Friday, August 13, 2010
The Yellow Brick Road: Under Construction
The Great Oz and the Good Witch of the South, a.k.a. The Professor and The Housewife (one cannot have too many nicknames) have run full speed into a pothole the size of Kansas on the Yellow Brick Road to sustainability and clarity.
So now the curtain has been pulled back and you can see how we are fumbling with the controls of our recently launched blog. We hope that you'll be patient with us. We have, it seems, lost a bit of writing. We could have told you to "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" but that's really not our style. We hope to always be honest with you. Not to worry though, Professor J has given us all enough to think about in his last post to get us through the weekend.
If you've fallen behind in the discussion this is the time to catch up on your homework. The hourglass has been flipped and the sand runs out early next week when The Professor returns, barring an attack of flying monkeys. :)
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Life on the D-Tour
Madame M,
Your title I am replying to almost made me want to make a funny about one of us (doesn’t matter which) maybe titling ours “The Great Oz Speaks.” LOL
Those with wealth and power are most successful when the society is too scattered among too many things, meaning the chances for attention are lower.
Personal responsibility has declined as both character and communal spirit and responsibility have declined.
Pundits who like to talk (their main thing, after all) are assessing incorrectly TEA party membership in the whole. Although some members are racist, uninformed, narrowly selfish, belligerently religious-centric, or crudely ignorant, many, apparently even a majority according to political scientists, have merely a deep feeling their government has gotten away from them, that it is not responding to their desires for living within its means, and that their government has become too intrusive. While the movement as a whole can be justly criticized for focusing too much on taxation, and having too little in the way of specifics about spending reduction, the dismissive wave that too many in “the establishment” (media, politics, business, even academia) give it is unwarranted.
You make a very good point that those outside the TEA Party who fear or dismiss it never make a comparison to the historical American patriot, an unfortunate oversight, especially because much of the dissent is borne from the same sources and from the same kinds of folks as the Patriots of late colonial America. It is a sort of bitter irony.
Concerning the comparison to fascism, it is because it is the one recent oppressive philosophy that arose and took root in the heart of the supposedly enlightened, modern, and “spiritually virtuous” West. Those with any historical sense at all fear it especially. That it and other forms of deeply oppressive authoritarianism also took place in an Eastern Europe that remained feudal far longer did not raise nearly the horror as when it showed up in a place that had, since barbarian Germania times, been a place of free-thinking, freedom loving, and highly independent peoples. Side note: Few considered the overarching Prussian (read, largely Eastern European) influence on the Germans when they unified.
Your three questions: “Is it likely that a country born out of a desire for freedom and individual liberty is going to have a different reaction to events in times of crisis than one that grew out of a feudal system? OR do all human beings, groups, civilizations, etc. historically show the same weakness for craving order in the midst of chaos? AND isn't the US unique in history and so can an accurate comparison be made?”
It is more likely that a place that grew out of at least an initial struggle and desire for freedom and individual liberty will have different reactions to crises than one that came out of a feudal system. However, that difference may only be for a while. Democratic Athens, Republican Rome, Twelve Tribes of Israel, Iroquois Confederacy, and numerous city-states (Italian ones being most prominent) all transformed in character. Even Britain, the example since Runnymede of being “different,” and the “exception,” has not always been consistently so. The craving for order (usually provided by a strongman or group) as a society goes through great and often chaotic and/or undesired changes, is a strong one, and the susceptibility to corruption and selfishness that is a trait of nearly all “elites,” just as near-universal.
Well, part of the problem with the US, in both its internal dealings and external dealings with the rest of the world, is this idea, taken to excess, that it is unique. Yes, in many respects, from the very first, with the fortunate circumstances of there being no gold or silver here as Britain got over its Tudor hangover, this place got to develop in a near-unique way, and that development helped to foster an unusual people (leaving aside for the moment the generally atrocious way Europeans interacted with the native peoples). But what would eventually become America has taken that near-unique characteristic and often used it as a license for arrogant and ignorant behavior, an arrogance that has often ridden roughshod through history to the detriment of many (albeit perhaps the improvement of some). Claiming that it wasn’t/hasn’t been as bad as the arrogance and warlike character of the Europeans is, ironically, effectively damning with faint praise.
Chomsky is saying they shouldn’t be ridiculed because “the left,” (to use the easy term he loves) has failed to offer the TEA folks anything, even though economically populist wise, they share the same issues. That he uses the term “shenanigans,” is, in his own words, because he feels that legitimate anger and legitimate issues are being manipulated and even perverted by the true economic powers, who in turn hold the meaningful political power.
Chomsky’s words, from his blog: “Encouraging anti-tax fanaticism has long been a staple of business propaganda. People must be indoctrinated to hate and fear the government, for good reasons: Of the existing power systems, the government is the one that in principle, and sometimes in fact, answers to the public and can constrain the depredations of private power. However, anti-government propaganda must be nuanced. Business of course favors a powerful state that works for multinationals and financial institutions—and even bails them out when they destroy the economy.
But in a brilliant exercise in doublethink, people are led to hate and fear the deficit. That way, business’s cohorts in Washington may agree to cut benefits and entitlements like Social Security (but not bailouts). At the same time, people should not oppose what is largely creating the deficit—the growing military budget and the hopelessly inefficient privatized healthcare system.”
Now, one may disagree with a number of his premises above, but he is at least relatively clear on where he stands.
Even his supporters on his blog make statements that can be disagreed with on points, but which are often relatively clear: “The us-versus-them mentality prevents ‘the people’ from forming a potent coalition against the government criminals ripping us off. Libertarians, anti-war leftists, and the "Tea-Partiers" could be working together on several issues, such as opposing the bailouts, corporatism, and ballooning deficits of the regime. But to form a viable coalition, they'll have to heed Chomsky's advice and reach out to one another.”
As a historian, and as someone who lived through it (what we historians call one of the primary sources, which are considered of great value to historians both because interpretive filters are lessened, and because synthesizing is diminished as well), he knows full well how Goebbels and others masterfully used too many of the same techniques to manipulate real anger and real issues that people had with the Weimar Republic. As both historian and witness, Chomsky brings a rare combination. A piece of history written at the time is of great value, one written later by an eyewitness of nearly as great. Secondary sources that use those primary sources are still of value, but not as great a value, as many are qualified to do that. Historians use primary sources of history to study and research and develop secondary sources. Any first hand experience of having lived through constitutes a primary source, which is often a good deal more valuable and reliable than a secondary source (recorded by someone who wasn’t there/didn’t live it--and doesn't know the subtle differences and hidden meanings). Short lecture in historiography! :)
Of course, I am not going to expend a lot of blathering space defending Chomsky. Like his intellectual counterpart, Antonin Scalia, he’s big enough to not need me to defend his statements and record. I merely try to make sure he is attributed and insinuated correctly. However, he does need to get out of his ivory tower and among more than just sympathetic audiences. Shame on him as a historian for using only secondary sources for his information when so many primary sources exist. Although he can garner a slight pass for being over 80, still, his own state should have shocked him in January about the importance of getting a non-media owned ear to the ground.
And yes, you are parsing words, but sometimes that is a necessary exercise to nail down real meaning!
Panera attracts both genders of course, but it attracts females at a greater ratio in every Panera I’ve ever been (more than 30) across the country. Traditional yin traits of connection, comfort, and sociability are what I speak of. A corner bar has alcohol, and typically a much different and noisier atmosphere, so yes, I would say there’s a difference. Men like social things with each other too, but they won’t meet at a Panera’s typically as a group. They might meet in a mixed group there, or with their sig other, or for business, or for solitude, or with their family, or maybe even a short meeting with a buddy, but that would be about the extent.
Ah, but it seems to me that he can of course “give back,” if the feeling is one of gratitude to the society that has made it all possible. No man is an island, and few make it far without friends and help. Self-made people usually are only in a sense. Our friend Ms. Rand was right to question severely the greedy and exploitative collective machinery used by elites, but at times she was so colored by her experience that it made her a zealot instead of an analyst.
Your title I am replying to almost made me want to make a funny about one of us (doesn’t matter which) maybe titling ours “The Great Oz Speaks.” LOL
Those with wealth and power are most successful when the society is too scattered among too many things, meaning the chances for attention are lower.
Personal responsibility has declined as both character and communal spirit and responsibility have declined.
Pundits who like to talk (their main thing, after all) are assessing incorrectly TEA party membership in the whole. Although some members are racist, uninformed, narrowly selfish, belligerently religious-centric, or crudely ignorant, many, apparently even a majority according to political scientists, have merely a deep feeling their government has gotten away from them, that it is not responding to their desires for living within its means, and that their government has become too intrusive. While the movement as a whole can be justly criticized for focusing too much on taxation, and having too little in the way of specifics about spending reduction, the dismissive wave that too many in “the establishment” (media, politics, business, even academia) give it is unwarranted.
You make a very good point that those outside the TEA Party who fear or dismiss it never make a comparison to the historical American patriot, an unfortunate oversight, especially because much of the dissent is borne from the same sources and from the same kinds of folks as the Patriots of late colonial America. It is a sort of bitter irony.
Concerning the comparison to fascism, it is because it is the one recent oppressive philosophy that arose and took root in the heart of the supposedly enlightened, modern, and “spiritually virtuous” West. Those with any historical sense at all fear it especially. That it and other forms of deeply oppressive authoritarianism also took place in an Eastern Europe that remained feudal far longer did not raise nearly the horror as when it showed up in a place that had, since barbarian Germania times, been a place of free-thinking, freedom loving, and highly independent peoples. Side note: Few considered the overarching Prussian (read, largely Eastern European) influence on the Germans when they unified.
Your three questions: “Is it likely that a country born out of a desire for freedom and individual liberty is going to have a different reaction to events in times of crisis than one that grew out of a feudal system? OR do all human beings, groups, civilizations, etc. historically show the same weakness for craving order in the midst of chaos? AND isn't the US unique in history and so can an accurate comparison be made?”
It is more likely that a place that grew out of at least an initial struggle and desire for freedom and individual liberty will have different reactions to crises than one that came out of a feudal system. However, that difference may only be for a while. Democratic Athens, Republican Rome, Twelve Tribes of Israel, Iroquois Confederacy, and numerous city-states (Italian ones being most prominent) all transformed in character. Even Britain, the example since Runnymede of being “different,” and the “exception,” has not always been consistently so. The craving for order (usually provided by a strongman or group) as a society goes through great and often chaotic and/or undesired changes, is a strong one, and the susceptibility to corruption and selfishness that is a trait of nearly all “elites,” just as near-universal.
Well, part of the problem with the US, in both its internal dealings and external dealings with the rest of the world, is this idea, taken to excess, that it is unique. Yes, in many respects, from the very first, with the fortunate circumstances of there being no gold or silver here as Britain got over its Tudor hangover, this place got to develop in a near-unique way, and that development helped to foster an unusual people (leaving aside for the moment the generally atrocious way Europeans interacted with the native peoples). But what would eventually become America has taken that near-unique characteristic and often used it as a license for arrogant and ignorant behavior, an arrogance that has often ridden roughshod through history to the detriment of many (albeit perhaps the improvement of some). Claiming that it wasn’t/hasn’t been as bad as the arrogance and warlike character of the Europeans is, ironically, effectively damning with faint praise.
Chomsky is saying they shouldn’t be ridiculed because “the left,” (to use the easy term he loves) has failed to offer the TEA folks anything, even though economically populist wise, they share the same issues. That he uses the term “shenanigans,” is, in his own words, because he feels that legitimate anger and legitimate issues are being manipulated and even perverted by the true economic powers, who in turn hold the meaningful political power.
Chomsky’s words, from his blog: “Encouraging anti-tax fanaticism has long been a staple of business propaganda. People must be indoctrinated to hate and fear the government, for good reasons: Of the existing power systems, the government is the one that in principle, and sometimes in fact, answers to the public and can constrain the depredations of private power. However, anti-government propaganda must be nuanced. Business of course favors a powerful state that works for multinationals and financial institutions—and even bails them out when they destroy the economy.
But in a brilliant exercise in doublethink, people are led to hate and fear the deficit. That way, business’s cohorts in Washington may agree to cut benefits and entitlements like Social Security (but not bailouts). At the same time, people should not oppose what is largely creating the deficit—the growing military budget and the hopelessly inefficient privatized healthcare system.”
Now, one may disagree with a number of his premises above, but he is at least relatively clear on where he stands.
Even his supporters on his blog make statements that can be disagreed with on points, but which are often relatively clear: “The us-versus-them mentality prevents ‘the people’ from forming a potent coalition against the government criminals ripping us off. Libertarians, anti-war leftists, and the "Tea-Partiers" could be working together on several issues, such as opposing the bailouts, corporatism, and ballooning deficits of the regime. But to form a viable coalition, they'll have to heed Chomsky's advice and reach out to one another.”
As a historian, and as someone who lived through it (what we historians call one of the primary sources, which are considered of great value to historians both because interpretive filters are lessened, and because synthesizing is diminished as well), he knows full well how Goebbels and others masterfully used too many of the same techniques to manipulate real anger and real issues that people had with the Weimar Republic. As both historian and witness, Chomsky brings a rare combination. A piece of history written at the time is of great value, one written later by an eyewitness of nearly as great. Secondary sources that use those primary sources are still of value, but not as great a value, as many are qualified to do that. Historians use primary sources of history to study and research and develop secondary sources. Any first hand experience of having lived through constitutes a primary source, which is often a good deal more valuable and reliable than a secondary source (recorded by someone who wasn’t there/didn’t live it--and doesn't know the subtle differences and hidden meanings). Short lecture in historiography! :)
Of course, I am not going to expend a lot of blathering space defending Chomsky. Like his intellectual counterpart, Antonin Scalia, he’s big enough to not need me to defend his statements and record. I merely try to make sure he is attributed and insinuated correctly. However, he does need to get out of his ivory tower and among more than just sympathetic audiences. Shame on him as a historian for using only secondary sources for his information when so many primary sources exist. Although he can garner a slight pass for being over 80, still, his own state should have shocked him in January about the importance of getting a non-media owned ear to the ground.
And yes, you are parsing words, but sometimes that is a necessary exercise to nail down real meaning!
Panera attracts both genders of course, but it attracts females at a greater ratio in every Panera I’ve ever been (more than 30) across the country. Traditional yin traits of connection, comfort, and sociability are what I speak of. A corner bar has alcohol, and typically a much different and noisier atmosphere, so yes, I would say there’s a difference. Men like social things with each other too, but they won’t meet at a Panera’s typically as a group. They might meet in a mixed group there, or with their sig other, or for business, or for solitude, or with their family, or maybe even a short meeting with a buddy, but that would be about the extent.
Ah, but it seems to me that he can of course “give back,” if the feeling is one of gratitude to the society that has made it all possible. No man is an island, and few make it far without friends and help. Self-made people usually are only in a sense. Our friend Ms. Rand was right to question severely the greedy and exploitative collective machinery used by elites, but at times she was so colored by her experience that it made her a zealot instead of an analyst.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Detour on the Yellow Brick Road, Re: Clarity, Capitalism, Corporations, Sustainability, Oh My! (Part 2)
Professor J,
You are correct (I hope) when you say that we are not fated to either extreme. My point was that even in the most extreme cases either way those with enough incentive and power to do so, could work the system, whatever it is, in their favor. As for the rest of your comments on regulation, I agree wholeheartedly! Isn't part of the problem also our overly litigious society? In days gone by Mary's parents would have been heartbroken and wished they'd kept a better eye on her. Today, however, they are likely to sue the neighbor and the company that installed the pool, along with the fence company, the manufacturer of the latch on the gate, and the city for not having an ordinance requiring the pool owner to drain it when it's not in use. Where has personal responsibility gone? What kind of society are we when we want the government to create one law after another to protect us from ourselves, our choices, and as you say, "the inherent risk of living"?
My reaction to the Chomsky quote is born out of frustration with hearing pundits, commentators, and the like describe the TEA party members as everything from racist to ignorant and uniformed, and worse. This quote from from an article in The Progressive is interesting:
"When farmers, the petit bourgeoisie, and Christian organizations joined forces with the Nazis, “the center very quickly collapsed,” Chomsky said.
No analogy is perfect, he said, but the echoes of fascism are “reverberating” today, he said.
Why is the comparison to the Nazis and fascism? Why isn't it EVER to the early American patriot?
Here's a question for you, Professor: Is it likely that a country born out of a desire for freedom and individual liberty is going to have a different reaction to events in times of crisis than one that grew out of a feudal system? OR do all human beings, groups, civilizations, etc. historically show the same weakness for craving order in the midst of chaos? AND isn't the US unique in history and so can an accurate comparison be made? Well, that's 3 questions, isn't it?
I noticed in several interviews Mr. Chomsky states where he gets his information about the TEA Party members, and it isn't that he's attended a rally or protest to speak to any of them or knows any of them personally but only that he has watched news coverage (which is of course ALWAYS completely unbiased) and listens to talk radio, so perhaps his conclusions are less than fully researched. I used the term (which I know you dislike) "left" because this is how Mr. Chomsky refers to himself routinely and how several interviewers described him. I can't help wonder what is so terrifying about people who esteem the ideas of Madison, Adams, and Jefferson and would like to see the country move back toward them. I'm also a bit confused about why he should get any credibility because he lived through a specific era of history. He may have some anecdotal things to share but other than that I'm missing the vast insight he might have due solely to the fact that he happened to be alive then (studying and thorough research are something else).
He said, “Ridiculing the tea party shenanigans is a serious error,” which is ever so slightly (or maybe not) making fun of them. I notice that he didn't say; rallies, protests, or demonstrations. What am I to make of him using a word that carries with it the implication of deceitfulness and underhandedness? Even if he meant the more Halloween definition of the word it still carries a negative connotation. I know I'm parsing words here but when someone as intelligent as Chomsky chooses a word, one can assume that he knows the exact meaning and given the groups to whom he is speaking, that his audience does also.
Having said all of that, I have to agree with you when you say that the elites on either "side" don't care about the "crushing debt being dumped on the future". And I suspect that you and I would probably agree that the "elites" only have one "side" ... and it's theirs.
"Panera’s success is in no small part because it reinforces the feeling of comfort, connection, and sociability". Maybe. I'm not sure if those are necessarily feminine aspects. Wouldn't you describe a round of drinks among close male friends at a corner bar the same way? I rather think it is a human desire. As to the "sociability" something about Panera does remind me of Starbucks so maybe you are on to something. Hmm....but maybe it's just the Fuji Apple Chicken Salad.
I would agree with you that the " feeling of being fortunate and blessed, and feeling a desire from that blessing to share that fortune and blessing with others out of kindness and wish to help" is his sincere motive, and yes, the verse you refer to is in Luke:12. It is the terminology I take issue with (we often have these catch phrases that enter the American lexicon and get overused and become irritating). But to parse words (again) and be a tad persnickety and literal he may be able to share, pay it forward, and pass it on. He cannot however "give back" something unless he has either taken it from someone or it has been given to him (neither of which is the case it seems as he is a successful entrepreneur). Wouldn't our friend, Ms. Rand, agree? (I would VERY much like to have heard what she would have had to say if anyone had suggested such a thing to her!)
I have much more to say on all of this, but as you see, the brevity monster has reared its ugly head once again.
You are correct (I hope) when you say that we are not fated to either extreme. My point was that even in the most extreme cases either way those with enough incentive and power to do so, could work the system, whatever it is, in their favor. As for the rest of your comments on regulation, I agree wholeheartedly! Isn't part of the problem also our overly litigious society? In days gone by Mary's parents would have been heartbroken and wished they'd kept a better eye on her. Today, however, they are likely to sue the neighbor and the company that installed the pool, along with the fence company, the manufacturer of the latch on the gate, and the city for not having an ordinance requiring the pool owner to drain it when it's not in use. Where has personal responsibility gone? What kind of society are we when we want the government to create one law after another to protect us from ourselves, our choices, and as you say, "the inherent risk of living"?
"When farmers, the petit bourgeoisie, and Christian organizations joined forces with the Nazis, “the center very quickly collapsed,” Chomsky said.
No analogy is perfect, he said, but the echoes of fascism are “reverberating” today, he said.
Why is the comparison to the Nazis and fascism? Why isn't it EVER to the early American patriot?
Here's a question for you, Professor: Is it likely that a country born out of a desire for freedom and individual liberty is going to have a different reaction to events in times of crisis than one that grew out of a feudal system? OR do all human beings, groups, civilizations, etc. historically show the same weakness for craving order in the midst of chaos? AND isn't the US unique in history and so can an accurate comparison be made? Well, that's 3 questions, isn't it?
I noticed in several interviews Mr. Chomsky states where he gets his information about the TEA Party members, and it isn't that he's attended a rally or protest to speak to any of them or knows any of them personally but only that he has watched news coverage (which is of course ALWAYS completely unbiased) and listens to talk radio, so perhaps his conclusions are less than fully researched. I used the term (which I know you dislike) "left" because this is how Mr. Chomsky refers to himself routinely and how several interviewers described him. I can't help wonder what is so terrifying about people who esteem the ideas of Madison, Adams, and Jefferson and would like to see the country move back toward them. I'm also a bit confused about why he should get any credibility because he lived through a specific era of history. He may have some anecdotal things to share but other than that I'm missing the vast insight he might have due solely to the fact that he happened to be alive then (studying and thorough research are something else).
Having said all of that, I have to agree with you when you say that the elites on either "side" don't care about the "crushing debt being dumped on the future". And I suspect that you and I would probably agree that the "elites" only have one "side" ... and it's theirs.
"Panera’s success is in no small part because it reinforces the feeling of comfort, connection, and sociability". Maybe. I'm not sure if those are necessarily feminine aspects. Wouldn't you describe a round of drinks among close male friends at a corner bar the same way? I rather think it is a human desire. As to the "sociability" something about Panera does remind me of Starbucks so maybe you are on to something. Hmm....but maybe it's just the Fuji Apple Chicken Salad.
I would agree with you that the " feeling of being fortunate and blessed, and feeling a desire from that blessing to share that fortune and blessing with others out of kindness and wish to help" is his sincere motive, and yes, the verse you refer to is in Luke:12. It is the terminology I take issue with (we often have these catch phrases that enter the American lexicon and get overused and become irritating). But to parse words (again) and be a tad persnickety and literal he may be able to share, pay it forward, and pass it on. He cannot however "give back" something unless he has either taken it from someone or it has been given to him (neither of which is the case it seems as he is a successful entrepreneur). Wouldn't our friend, Ms. Rand, agree? (I would VERY much like to have heard what she would have had to say if anyone had suggested such a thing to her!)
I have much more to say on all of this, but as you see, the brevity monster has reared its ugly head once again.
Friday, August 6, 2010
Where is the Yellow Brick Road to Sustainability? Re: Clarity, Capitalism, Corporations, Sustainability, Oh My! (Part 1)
Professor J,
I wanted a longer title for this post but that was the best I could do.
I agree with you that our economy, infrastructure and many more aspects of our lives are now made up of increasingly complex systems and tight coupling which means less and less room for error, so that decisions whether good or bad have far reaching and more and more often global implications as a result. It seems to me, however, that you can only punish a specific behavior and demand accountability after the fact unless you are going to get into the area of trying to guess how corporations--and the people who run them--might behave in the future. I wouldn't want to see additional regulation imposed (which sometimes happens in a case like this just so leaders can say they are "doing something") until we gain an understanding of what regulations already exist that were intentionally broken or carelessly overlooked. That would entail the truth being exposed fully and since we are dealing with both a multinational corporation and the government, that seems unlikely. It's possible that a rule is currently on the books that, had it been followed, would have prevented the disaster. No amount of rules and regulations matter if they are not followed, enforced, or if what has been created is unenforceable for some reason.
You said, "we humans don’t always think through (and rarely completely) our actions", which I would agree with. But I also say it is impossible to predict ALL the results of our actions even with the most sincere effort.
I think that 20 billion dollars (if we see that amount eventually paid into the escrow account as has been promised) would be attention getting to most corporations, along with the tarnished brand and negative publicity. Making the consequences for the spill so strong as to cause the bankruptcy of the company, however would prohibit them funding the cleanup and leave their pensioners, most of whom have done nothing wrong, paying the price for something out of their control. The same could be said for the American taxpayer, who would be left to foot the bill, without the company. I say this even though I have not purchased gas from BP since the spill, not out of any decision to officially boycott, but rather out of a feeling that I cannot in good conscience do business with them. (Isn't that Capitalism at work, the consumer punishing the company for their carelessness without regulation?) I would however, like you to outline a solution that you would like to see, so that I have a better understanding of exactly what action; regulation, legislation, fines, etc. you would think appropriate.
Don't we really have two problems here? The one is the immediate problem of how to deal with the spill (a painful symptom of our long term disease; selfishness, as you so rightly point out), make drilling for oil safer, and discourage this kind of reckless behavior in the future. The other is the long term problem of our reliance on oil. But they cannot be compared. One is the equivalent of buying groceries this week to feed Jr. and the other is how to save for college so he is eventually educated and self reliant. Don't we need to find out how to do both at the same time? Neither of the objectives is wrong (unless we continue to let Jr. gorge himself on chips and soda, taking no action while he is putting his long term health at risk). Because of the complexity and oil dependency of the economy, no, the world we've created, change will take some time. You used the example of the smoker. Imagine that in 1945 you had told someone that in the future smoking would be banned in most public places and generally be frowned upon by society. They wouldn't have been able to conceive such a thing, yet here we are. Change is possible with enough education, but it will take time.
Have we ignored the reality of our predicament far too long? Yes. Change is hard, massive change massively so. People are change resistant, especially when they can't quite see how new ideas are going to work. So we choose not to see the long term results of our actions. Denial is costly in most areas of life, yet is far too often a major component in the decision making process. We have several complicated problems at play here; an economy built on a resource that is costly to our nation (and the world) in many ways; the ethics or lack thereof of the major players involved; and what I suspect is a very flawed decision making process in the upper echelons of the company at fault. We often see seemingly intelligent leaders make ridiculously stupid decisions even when they know better, for many reasons other than greed. (See note.)
I agree with you that we should ADAPT and reexamine our WANTS/NEEDS because as you suggest we have lost the ability to tell the difference. Just as too many lived the illusion of prosperity on borrowed money and learned that lesson the hard way over the past two years, this spill is a visible lesson in the cost of our mistakes and missteps on many levels.
Note: If the reader is interested in learning more about HOW and WHY leaders and their decision making teams make the choices they do, then Harvard Business School Working Knowledge article entitled "High Stakes Decision Making: The Lessons of Mt. Everest, may be of interest. Also check out the blog of Professor Michael Roberto.
I wanted a longer title for this post but that was the best I could do.
I agree with you that our economy, infrastructure and many more aspects of our lives are now made up of increasingly complex systems and tight coupling which means less and less room for error, so that decisions whether good or bad have far reaching and more and more often global implications as a result. It seems to me, however, that you can only punish a specific behavior and demand accountability after the fact unless you are going to get into the area of trying to guess how corporations--and the people who run them--might behave in the future. I wouldn't want to see additional regulation imposed (which sometimes happens in a case like this just so leaders can say they are "doing something") until we gain an understanding of what regulations already exist that were intentionally broken or carelessly overlooked. That would entail the truth being exposed fully and since we are dealing with both a multinational corporation and the government, that seems unlikely. It's possible that a rule is currently on the books that, had it been followed, would have prevented the disaster. No amount of rules and regulations matter if they are not followed, enforced, or if what has been created is unenforceable for some reason.
I think that 20 billion dollars (if we see that amount eventually paid into the escrow account as has been promised) would be attention getting to most corporations, along with the tarnished brand and negative publicity. Making the consequences for the spill so strong as to cause the bankruptcy of the company, however would prohibit them funding the cleanup and leave their pensioners, most of whom have done nothing wrong, paying the price for something out of their control. The same could be said for the American taxpayer, who would be left to foot the bill, without the company. I say this even though I have not purchased gas from BP since the spill, not out of any decision to officially boycott, but rather out of a feeling that I cannot in good conscience do business with them. (Isn't that Capitalism at work, the consumer punishing the company for their carelessness without regulation?) I would however, like you to outline a solution that you would like to see, so that I have a better understanding of exactly what action; regulation, legislation, fines, etc. you would think appropriate.
Don't we really have two problems here? The one is the immediate problem of how to deal with the spill (a painful symptom of our long term disease; selfishness, as you so rightly point out), make drilling for oil safer, and discourage this kind of reckless behavior in the future. The other is the long term problem of our reliance on oil. But they cannot be compared. One is the equivalent of buying groceries this week to feed Jr. and the other is how to save for college so he is eventually educated and self reliant. Don't we need to find out how to do both at the same time? Neither of the objectives is wrong (unless we continue to let Jr. gorge himself on chips and soda, taking no action while he is putting his long term health at risk). Because of the complexity and oil dependency of the economy, no, the world we've created, change will take some time. You used the example of the smoker. Imagine that in 1945 you had told someone that in the future smoking would be banned in most public places and generally be frowned upon by society. They wouldn't have been able to conceive such a thing, yet here we are. Change is possible with enough education, but it will take time.
Have we ignored the reality of our predicament far too long? Yes. Change is hard, massive change massively so. People are change resistant, especially when they can't quite see how new ideas are going to work. So we choose not to see the long term results of our actions. Denial is costly in most areas of life, yet is far too often a major component in the decision making process. We have several complicated problems at play here; an economy built on a resource that is costly to our nation (and the world) in many ways; the ethics or lack thereof of the major players involved; and what I suspect is a very flawed decision making process in the upper echelons of the company at fault. We often see seemingly intelligent leaders make ridiculously stupid decisions even when they know better, for many reasons other than greed. (See note.)
I agree with you that we should ADAPT and reexamine our WANTS/NEEDS because as you suggest we have lost the ability to tell the difference. Just as too many lived the illusion of prosperity on borrowed money and learned that lesson the hard way over the past two years, this spill is a visible lesson in the cost of our mistakes and missteps on many levels.
Note: If the reader is interested in learning more about HOW and WHY leaders and their decision making teams make the choices they do, then Harvard Business School Working Knowledge article entitled "High Stakes Decision Making: The Lessons of Mt. Everest, may be of interest. Also check out the blog of Professor Michael Roberto.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Clarity, Capitalism, Corporations, Sustainability, Oh My! (Part 2)
Either extreme? Hmm. I do not think it is FATED to be peg-meter polarized in either direction. As I said, we regulate far too many things. We seem unable to achieve either perspective or clarity. Regulation should largely be for those things which can be CATASTROPHIC to environment and society if screwed up. Nearly everything else should be UN-regulated. Yes, there can be guidelines, common practices, and all sorts of voluntary things which any good collective achieves, but mandates? Not for most things. In seeking to DO more, the society not only excessively complicates, but actually winds up with the effect of achieving LESS.
The problem is that we don’t see this. If law and regulation are good for one thing, the thinking goes, it should be good for another. This impulse, not universal, could be resisted better if it weren't for what I call the sensational events. The house falls down on its family and kills them because of faulty construction and materials. People call for “action” so something like that doesn’t happen again. The vehicle overturns and paralyzes a passenger. Out come laws and regulations to “make sure that doesn’t happen again.” Little Mary goes into her neighbor’s yard and falls into the pool and drowns. Requirements for fences, signs, etc. come out, so somebody else’s little Mary doesn’t die.
Yet none of these events are catastrophic. They are personal tragedies, but none of them are going to hurt the society to the point it might be seriously degraded perpetually and maybe not recover. Even a hundred thousand deaths are not going to take down the society. No, they are the inherent risk of living, and assumed by past populations without thought. Yet we legislate and regulate for our “safety,” and so the process of excessive, choking, maddening complexity begins, subtly and with good intentions.
This is not to say that voluntary changes or communal practices to remedy should not be welcomed; they most definitely should. But that is a far cry from introducing complexity into your society, which every law, every rule, every regulation (and the fear of all those) do. Too much complexity debilitates the individual and collapses the society.
The society should set standards to attempt to kow-tow the deviants; it can only be as successful as the general solidity and commonality of the culture. Too much law and regulation actually reduces both respect for and effectiveness of the law, not to mention the mental and emotional drags those put on individuals and the millstone they put on the economy.
I would say that tearing down muscle and building up is the sign of a healthy system that is making itself notably stronger but not making itself sick. It is certainly not a wrecked one. When it has wrecked itself, the body is not getting better. Sometimes it is maimed or infirmed for life. And sometimes life itself leaves.
I am not sure I follow your reaction to Chomsky’s comments. I thought his apprehension was because deep legitimate anger and frustration and desire for easy to follow solutions can be used by the nefarious for their own purposes. And I am also not sure I follow what you mean by “the assumption on the ‘left’…is always that the anger is a result of anything except them being angry over the loss of individual freedom and crushing debt that will be dumped on future generations.” Whatever “the left” actually is, it is certainly not a uniform “group” by any means, and so “always” would be a quite polemic term even if the other items were absolutely sequitir. And I do not believe they are. Chomsky, if I am understanding him correctly, is fearing the very loss of individual freedom that accompanies the subtle rise of Fascism (or really authoritarianism of any kind), and given that he actually lived through the rise of Nazism gives him a bit of credibility about that at least. And I do not think the elites on either “side” are caring much about the crushing debt being dumped on future generations. But those in regular America, of most all political stripes, ARE often concerned about it, although there are some ignorant or oblivious on all ends who blindly and narrowly don’t make the connection. But I will agree that libertarians and TEA party members seem more concerned than average.
And that IS largely what he means by “state capitalism.” But a bit more; he means that the state (in political terms, the government, not the way we usually use it) in reality merely functions to serve capitalism in its most predatory and exploitative form (corporatism), and is effectively controlled by that corporatism.
Don’t you think Panera’s success is in no small part because it reinforces the feeling of comfort, connection, and sociability that have traditionally been feminine strong points, and gives the impression (as best as a corporate business can) of a welcoming place? I wish them success in their experiment. I’m not certain I would infer the same meaning to “giving back” as you did, however, for it doesn’t seem to hold a zero-sum connotation. Isn’t there a biblical passage about “to whom much is given, much will be expected,” or something to that effect? I would thus infer the former CEO’s comments to a feeling of being fortunate and blessed, and feeling a desire from that blessing to share that fortune and blessing with others out of kindness and wish to help.
And if my reply has been unmercifully short on these subjects of great importance, I do apologize, my dear Madame. Time is the scarcest resource, and there hasn’t been enough of the unencumbered sort lately!
The problem is that we don’t see this. If law and regulation are good for one thing, the thinking goes, it should be good for another. This impulse, not universal, could be resisted better if it weren't for what I call the sensational events. The house falls down on its family and kills them because of faulty construction and materials. People call for “action” so something like that doesn’t happen again. The vehicle overturns and paralyzes a passenger. Out come laws and regulations to “make sure that doesn’t happen again.” Little Mary goes into her neighbor’s yard and falls into the pool and drowns. Requirements for fences, signs, etc. come out, so somebody else’s little Mary doesn’t die.
Yet none of these events are catastrophic. They are personal tragedies, but none of them are going to hurt the society to the point it might be seriously degraded perpetually and maybe not recover. Even a hundred thousand deaths are not going to take down the society. No, they are the inherent risk of living, and assumed by past populations without thought. Yet we legislate and regulate for our “safety,” and so the process of excessive, choking, maddening complexity begins, subtly and with good intentions.
This is not to say that voluntary changes or communal practices to remedy should not be welcomed; they most definitely should. But that is a far cry from introducing complexity into your society, which every law, every rule, every regulation (and the fear of all those) do. Too much complexity debilitates the individual and collapses the society.
The society should set standards to attempt to kow-tow the deviants; it can only be as successful as the general solidity and commonality of the culture. Too much law and regulation actually reduces both respect for and effectiveness of the law, not to mention the mental and emotional drags those put on individuals and the millstone they put on the economy.
I would say that tearing down muscle and building up is the sign of a healthy system that is making itself notably stronger but not making itself sick. It is certainly not a wrecked one. When it has wrecked itself, the body is not getting better. Sometimes it is maimed or infirmed for life. And sometimes life itself leaves.
I am not sure I follow your reaction to Chomsky’s comments. I thought his apprehension was because deep legitimate anger and frustration and desire for easy to follow solutions can be used by the nefarious for their own purposes. And I am also not sure I follow what you mean by “the assumption on the ‘left’…is always that the anger is a result of anything except them being angry over the loss of individual freedom and crushing debt that will be dumped on future generations.” Whatever “the left” actually is, it is certainly not a uniform “group” by any means, and so “always” would be a quite polemic term even if the other items were absolutely sequitir. And I do not believe they are. Chomsky, if I am understanding him correctly, is fearing the very loss of individual freedom that accompanies the subtle rise of Fascism (or really authoritarianism of any kind), and given that he actually lived through the rise of Nazism gives him a bit of credibility about that at least. And I do not think the elites on either “side” are caring much about the crushing debt being dumped on future generations. But those in regular America, of most all political stripes, ARE often concerned about it, although there are some ignorant or oblivious on all ends who blindly and narrowly don’t make the connection. But I will agree that libertarians and TEA party members seem more concerned than average.
And that IS largely what he means by “state capitalism.” But a bit more; he means that the state (in political terms, the government, not the way we usually use it) in reality merely functions to serve capitalism in its most predatory and exploitative form (corporatism), and is effectively controlled by that corporatism.
Don’t you think Panera’s success is in no small part because it reinforces the feeling of comfort, connection, and sociability that have traditionally been feminine strong points, and gives the impression (as best as a corporate business can) of a welcoming place? I wish them success in their experiment. I’m not certain I would infer the same meaning to “giving back” as you did, however, for it doesn’t seem to hold a zero-sum connotation. Isn’t there a biblical passage about “to whom much is given, much will be expected,” or something to that effect? I would thus infer the former CEO’s comments to a feeling of being fortunate and blessed, and feeling a desire from that blessing to share that fortune and blessing with others out of kindness and wish to help.
And if my reply has been unmercifully short on these subjects of great importance, I do apologize, my dear Madame. Time is the scarcest resource, and there hasn’t been enough of the unencumbered sort lately!
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Clarity, Capitalism, Corporations, Sustainability, Oh My! (Part 1)
Madame M,
On a large scale, capitalism in its so-called “pure” form has never been tried, but only hybrids of one sort or another. It may even be that no “pure” form is even possible on a large scale.
No, you can’t make someone honest or trustworthy (although the culture can foment), and more than one historian has remarked that the decline of a people’s character had more effect on their civilization’s downfall than anything else.
Legislation is usually worse than useless when it is reached for too much, as is it obviously is in our society.
“All that can be done is to make them pay after the damage is done.” I might agree with this for many things, but there are certain instances of the public good that are too critical for this philosophy to work. I don’t just mean oil wells, oil tankers, etc. and their now well demonstrated ability to catastrophically pollute, but things like nuclear power plants and the ability of megacorporations to completely destroy your economic way of life and all your personal financial health. Certain aspects of our highly technological and complicated society are so potentially damaging that this philosophy must have exceptions. While I agree that regulation can be and often is stiflingly and economically retarding and excessive, a complete lack of it is irresponsible given what can be at stake. The idea of self-interest and self-regulating can be a good one for many things, but we humans don’t always think through (and rarely completely) our actions, and sometimes self-interest is instead narrow selfishness. While we regulate far too many things (or at least, regulate excessively), and are too safety-obsessive, there are some things we need to regulate because individuals and corporations will either not think enough of the common good, or that the consequences of their failure to do so are too catastrophic.
Other potentially polluting companies ARE watching, and making cost calculations. I think the lesson they could be taking is how easy it is to escape TRUE responsibility and pain, especially of the personal accountability kind. Selfish disconnection, and a sense of who has the real power, seem the appropriate “lessons.”
Our regulatory inability to drill closer, which would be “safer?” This argument that is out there in the chattering class and media is a deflective one. The central problem is our addiction to a destructive substance, one as destructive to a society as tobacco or even heroin is to an individual. We attempt to deflect our addiction by making all sorts of compromises (filtered cigarettes anyone?) because we innately know it is irrational and destructive. We don’t want our ocean views spoiled, nor the teeming life in the relative shallows threatened, among other things, even though it is “safer” to drill in shallower water (although putting much stock in “safer,” given the oil industry’s often near-criminal disregard for safety measures that cost money, is irresponsible in itself). So we drill out of relative sight, in waters with less marine life, although it is a bit more dangerous and harder to rectify if something goes wrong. Yet the fundamental kraken in the water is that we are knowingly and willingly, as we have for so long, not facing up to and doing something about our self-destructive addiction. We are like the South American mine workers of old, who chewed coca leaves for the energy to keep working on, even though the dust and conditions were destroying their lungs and general health, and the coca leaves themselves burning up what little they had left, and with the reasons for mining so much being sheer greed and selfishness on the part of the “elites.”
What to do in the interim? We ADAPT. We LIVE within what is possible, not what is destructive illusion. Yes, we can do most or all the things outlined in 4.0, but the central point is that we first and foremost remember what matters: the continuity of life and the pact we make with future generations to be their good stewards and leave them at least as good a place and hopefully better. Right now, we are, except for a few notable things, leaving them a place that is not only not better, but markedly worse in many ways (including many non-environmental ones). That is selfishly irresponsible in the extreme. If I were our descendants, I would despise us so much that our memories would not even be honored. Our graves would be dug up, our embalmed bodies thrown into some common lime pit, and most traces of us erased in disgust.
We pamper ourselves with too much of “but we need, but we need,” both as individuals and society. We actually NEED a lot less than our endless WANTS would imply, and much of what we appear to need is what we have gotten used to, what we think we can’t do without, and the boxing trap of what has “always” been. Until we fix all what we have wrought, and bring ourselves back into sustainability, we should adapt and do without. Our grandparents and great grandparents, tested by the hard teachings of Depression and War, knew how to do that. “We have lost our way, Arthur.” [Excalibur]
On a large scale, capitalism in its so-called “pure” form has never been tried, but only hybrids of one sort or another. It may even be that no “pure” form is even possible on a large scale.
No, you can’t make someone honest or trustworthy (although the culture can foment), and more than one historian has remarked that the decline of a people’s character had more effect on their civilization’s downfall than anything else.
Legislation is usually worse than useless when it is reached for too much, as is it obviously is in our society.
“All that can be done is to make them pay after the damage is done.” I might agree with this for many things, but there are certain instances of the public good that are too critical for this philosophy to work. I don’t just mean oil wells, oil tankers, etc. and their now well demonstrated ability to catastrophically pollute, but things like nuclear power plants and the ability of megacorporations to completely destroy your economic way of life and all your personal financial health. Certain aspects of our highly technological and complicated society are so potentially damaging that this philosophy must have exceptions. While I agree that regulation can be and often is stiflingly and economically retarding and excessive, a complete lack of it is irresponsible given what can be at stake. The idea of self-interest and self-regulating can be a good one for many things, but we humans don’t always think through (and rarely completely) our actions, and sometimes self-interest is instead narrow selfishness. While we regulate far too many things (or at least, regulate excessively), and are too safety-obsessive, there are some things we need to regulate because individuals and corporations will either not think enough of the common good, or that the consequences of their failure to do so are too catastrophic.
Other potentially polluting companies ARE watching, and making cost calculations. I think the lesson they could be taking is how easy it is to escape TRUE responsibility and pain, especially of the personal accountability kind. Selfish disconnection, and a sense of who has the real power, seem the appropriate “lessons.”
Our regulatory inability to drill closer, which would be “safer?” This argument that is out there in the chattering class and media is a deflective one. The central problem is our addiction to a destructive substance, one as destructive to a society as tobacco or even heroin is to an individual. We attempt to deflect our addiction by making all sorts of compromises (filtered cigarettes anyone?) because we innately know it is irrational and destructive. We don’t want our ocean views spoiled, nor the teeming life in the relative shallows threatened, among other things, even though it is “safer” to drill in shallower water (although putting much stock in “safer,” given the oil industry’s often near-criminal disregard for safety measures that cost money, is irresponsible in itself). So we drill out of relative sight, in waters with less marine life, although it is a bit more dangerous and harder to rectify if something goes wrong. Yet the fundamental kraken in the water is that we are knowingly and willingly, as we have for so long, not facing up to and doing something about our self-destructive addiction. We are like the South American mine workers of old, who chewed coca leaves for the energy to keep working on, even though the dust and conditions were destroying their lungs and general health, and the coca leaves themselves burning up what little they had left, and with the reasons for mining so much being sheer greed and selfishness on the part of the “elites.”
What to do in the interim? We ADAPT. We LIVE within what is possible, not what is destructive illusion. Yes, we can do most or all the things outlined in 4.0, but the central point is that we first and foremost remember what matters: the continuity of life and the pact we make with future generations to be their good stewards and leave them at least as good a place and hopefully better. Right now, we are, except for a few notable things, leaving them a place that is not only not better, but markedly worse in many ways (including many non-environmental ones). That is selfishly irresponsible in the extreme. If I were our descendants, I would despise us so much that our memories would not even be honored. Our graves would be dug up, our embalmed bodies thrown into some common lime pit, and most traces of us erased in disgust.
We pamper ourselves with too much of “but we need, but we need,” both as individuals and society. We actually NEED a lot less than our endless WANTS would imply, and much of what we appear to need is what we have gotten used to, what we think we can’t do without, and the boxing trap of what has “always” been. Until we fix all what we have wrought, and bring ourselves back into sustainability, we should adapt and do without. Our grandparents and great grandparents, tested by the hard teachings of Depression and War, knew how to do that. “We have lost our way, Arthur.” [Excalibur]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
