Since the Newtown, Conn. school shooting, I’ve observed you cannot say the phrase “gun control” without someone launching a hissy fit about Second Amendment Rights and regulations leading to all guns being banned.
Calm down, people.
First, let’s admit we have a problem with violence in this country, and gun violence is part of that. When guns are everywhere (and they are), they become part of the problem. As researchers at Harvard found, more guns equal more homicide. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html
Next, let’s be honest about the fact that we’re looking for a solution – any solution. And human nature being what it is, we want that solution to be simple. Just give us the Staples “Easy” button.
It ain’t gonna happen. Did your parents ever tell you life was simple? Or as I like to ask, “Do you see in color?”
See, I studied drawing, which is really the practice of observing, analyzing and problem solving to create, in traditional studio drawing, a two-dimensional depiction of three-dimensional objects. One of the first things you learn is you can’t create a realistic depiction with only black and white. The two extremes alone create an abstraction.
So, you introduce every shade of gray from black to white. With the full range of values, you can create an amazing reproduction of reality.
Except, to complicate things further, we also see in color.
The gun “control” battle is like that. We want to blame one thing for events like the Sandy Hook massacre: guns; mentally ill, crazy or evil people; poor mental healthcare; violent video games and movies; unequal economic opportunity . . . and so on.
But reality is more complicated. The ugly truth is probably that ALL these things contribute to violence in America. Unfortunately, as a consumer society, we’ve had black/white, either/or dichotomies sold to us via infotainment and advertising – to the point we accept them as reality.
As Exhibit A, I give you our Congressional Republicans who determined, with the help of Newt Gingrich in the 90s, Democrats are the enemy. Perhaps this is why Congress can’t pass a budget.
And as Exhibit B, I’d present gun control. Or perhaps it might be better to call it public safety.
Because that’s really the issue – how can we keep each other safe in a society that values, and in many places, needs its guns? How do we balance public safety with regulations to ensure responsible gun ownership?
A full range of options exist, from registration and liscensure, limits on certain types of weapons, buy-back programs, etc. -- or everything from black to white. I like Iowa author Jane Smiley’s suggestion to require liability insurance on guns. She writes: “According to the Public Services Research Institute ‘the average cost of a gunshot related death is $33,000, while gun-related injuries total more than $300,000 for each occurrence,’ some 4.7 billion smackers every year. You and I are paying for most of these costs.”
Smiley has a couple of other suggestions worth reading, too, as she kicks off this conversation. [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-smiley/a-few-remedies-for-the-ri_b_2323494.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false]
Solving this problem will mean calming down and talking to each other.
It will mean balancing individual rights of gun ownership with the common good of public safety. As Smiley notes, there are remedies, if you’re willing to see them.
So I repeat, “Do you see in color?”
Monday, January 7, 2013
Thursday, December 20, 2012
Do you know your home’s radon level?
As I’ve written, my family and I completed a major home renovation this fall. Specifically, we had our farm house, where I grew up, lifted and the old, brick, tile foundation and dirt floor basement replaced with a new-poured concrete foundation and basement. We also addressed a number of other issues like the roof and heating and cooling systems.
But the new foundation was the main event. It wasn’t just the cracks, bowing and moisture. Ever since we moved back into the house, we’ve had questions from some important elders in our life about the radon levels in the house. You see, both my parents developed cancer – pancreatic and colon – after living in that home for nearly 30 years. And radon is a known carcinogen, although it is usually linked to lung cancer.
Never heard of it? Well, it’s a naturally occurring element released into the soil, and it’s related to radium and uranium. Although it may be released anywhere, Iowa has high occurrences of it. So, all buildings should be tested. I had long suspected a problem, given the anxiety of my dad’s brother Bud and Dad’s friend Pastor Bob, not to mention the cancer history in my corner of Montgomery County. So as we made plans to renovate, I picked up a do-it-yourself test kit at the hardware store.
After leaving the test packet in the old basement the allotted amount of time, I sent it to the laboratory in the envelope provided, with instructions to e-mail the test results. About three days later, I received my e-mail. At 4 picocuries per liter (pCi/L), the lab tells you to FIX YOUR HOME (their emphasis). Our results were 12 pCi/L. Consequently, I e-mailed my architect and contractor the results and asked them to include a radon mitigation system in our plans. Seeing those numbers in black and white got us all moving.
And I thought about them a lot as I waited during that late June/early July heat wave for the work to begin. My family had gone on to stay with relatives in Illinois, and I was left alone with two of our cats to finish the plans. Every day I sat in that closed house with the air conditioning running made me wonder about my exposure. It was a relief to sleep at night upstairs with open windows, even if it wasn’t air conditioned.
I felt better when we moved back in over a solid foundation and basement floors, but I wasn’t completely at ease until after the radon mitigation system was installed. I can hear it now, running just outside the corner of the house where my computer sits.
It’s my favorite thing to show off when we tour the basement, even when I get jaw-dropping reactions to the new space like those of my nephews, who visited during Thanksgiving. And it’s a good thing I do include it on the tour, because too many people are unaware of this silent danger.
Most states now require radon testing for real estate transactions. But if your home hasn’t been tested, you should do it now. And I recommend you learn more about radon; the Environmental Protection Agency’s site is a great place to start: http://www.epa.gov/radon/index.html.
Trust me, you’ll sleep easier.
But the new foundation was the main event. It wasn’t just the cracks, bowing and moisture. Ever since we moved back into the house, we’ve had questions from some important elders in our life about the radon levels in the house. You see, both my parents developed cancer – pancreatic and colon – after living in that home for nearly 30 years. And radon is a known carcinogen, although it is usually linked to lung cancer.
Never heard of it? Well, it’s a naturally occurring element released into the soil, and it’s related to radium and uranium. Although it may be released anywhere, Iowa has high occurrences of it. So, all buildings should be tested. I had long suspected a problem, given the anxiety of my dad’s brother Bud and Dad’s friend Pastor Bob, not to mention the cancer history in my corner of Montgomery County. So as we made plans to renovate, I picked up a do-it-yourself test kit at the hardware store.
After leaving the test packet in the old basement the allotted amount of time, I sent it to the laboratory in the envelope provided, with instructions to e-mail the test results. About three days later, I received my e-mail. At 4 picocuries per liter (pCi/L), the lab tells you to FIX YOUR HOME (their emphasis). Our results were 12 pCi/L. Consequently, I e-mailed my architect and contractor the results and asked them to include a radon mitigation system in our plans. Seeing those numbers in black and white got us all moving.
And I thought about them a lot as I waited during that late June/early July heat wave for the work to begin. My family had gone on to stay with relatives in Illinois, and I was left alone with two of our cats to finish the plans. Every day I sat in that closed house with the air conditioning running made me wonder about my exposure. It was a relief to sleep at night upstairs with open windows, even if it wasn’t air conditioned.
I felt better when we moved back in over a solid foundation and basement floors, but I wasn’t completely at ease until after the radon mitigation system was installed. I can hear it now, running just outside the corner of the house where my computer sits.
It’s my favorite thing to show off when we tour the basement, even when I get jaw-dropping reactions to the new space like those of my nephews, who visited during Thanksgiving. And it’s a good thing I do include it on the tour, because too many people are unaware of this silent danger.
Most states now require radon testing for real estate transactions. But if your home hasn’t been tested, you should do it now. And I recommend you learn more about radon; the Environmental Protection Agency’s site is a great place to start: http://www.epa.gov/radon/index.html.
Trust me, you’ll sleep easier.
What is the right to work?
Last week as my usual Christmas baking frenzy got underway, the mailman delivered a small box from my brother in Texas. Inside was a stack of CDs — or as I termed them, “music to bake by.”
One of the CDs was Americana artist Dave Alvin’s Eleven Eleven, which includes a song called, “Gary, Indiana 1959.” Written from the viewpoint of a former U.S. Steel employee, the middle of the song reflects much of Middle America today.
“Now the years disappeared in the blink of an eye.
And I feel like a stranger in a world that isn’t mine.
Now my dear wife died, and my kids all moved away
‘cause there ain’t nothin’ here to make ‘em want to stay.
‘Cause the factories are in ruins; decent jobs hard to find,
and you can’t get a break no matter how hard you try.
‘Cause the big boys make the rules; tough luck for everyone else,
and out on the streets it’s every man for himself.”
This song echoes events in Michigan as Gov. Rick Snyder attempts to destroy unions via a “Right to Work” law. Like so many Corporate Conservative maneuvers, Right to Work laws are deceptively named. They have nothing to do with workers’ rights. Instead, they are designed to protect corporate political power and profits by gutting unions.
How? These laws do away with unions’ right to ask non-union members to help pay for the collective bargaining unions conduct to benefit ALL workers — union or non-union. Because the bottom line is, all workers at an organization benefit from the pay, benefits and protections union contracts provide. Employees who do not wish to belong to the union don’t have to pay union dues, simply the portion that covers the cost of bargaining. It’s only fair.
But throughout the years, via corporate control of media and campaign financing, efforts to demonize unions and collective bargaining have paid off. By and large Americans have fallen for these efforts. Union membership has declined, and not coincidentally, worker protections and wages have too. As Colin Gordon, professor of history at University of Iowa, writes on his blog for the Economic Policy Institute: “The wage effect alone underestimates the union contribution to shared prosperity... And unions not only raise the wage floor but can also lower the ceiling; union bargaining power has been shown to moderate the compensation of executives at unionized firms.” [http://www.epi.org/blog/union-decline-rising-inequality-charts/ ]
Many worker protections were won because of hard fought union battles, and today, we take most of them for granted: the 40-hour work week, employee benefits, paid vacation and safety regulations, to name a few. Unfortunately, after years of Corporate Conservative political influence, these benefits are no longer guaranteed.
Snyder’s lame-duck passage of a Right to Work law in Michigan follows a similar drive by Scott Walker in Wisconsin a year ago. In both cases, the initiative has been tied to the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and Americans for Prosperity, two organizations funded by the Koch brothers and other wealthy corporate moguls. [http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/12/michigan-right-to-work-unions.php]
These are the “big boys” Alvin sings about. Their goal is protecting their power and profit, not workers. So we’d best follow Alvin’s protagonist, who sings:
“I still remember where we marched side by side back in Gary, Indiana 1959.”
Because united we stand; divided we fall.
One of the CDs was Americana artist Dave Alvin’s Eleven Eleven, which includes a song called, “Gary, Indiana 1959.” Written from the viewpoint of a former U.S. Steel employee, the middle of the song reflects much of Middle America today.
“Now the years disappeared in the blink of an eye.
And I feel like a stranger in a world that isn’t mine.
Now my dear wife died, and my kids all moved away
‘cause there ain’t nothin’ here to make ‘em want to stay.
‘Cause the factories are in ruins; decent jobs hard to find,
and you can’t get a break no matter how hard you try.
‘Cause the big boys make the rules; tough luck for everyone else,
and out on the streets it’s every man for himself.”
This song echoes events in Michigan as Gov. Rick Snyder attempts to destroy unions via a “Right to Work” law. Like so many Corporate Conservative maneuvers, Right to Work laws are deceptively named. They have nothing to do with workers’ rights. Instead, they are designed to protect corporate political power and profits by gutting unions.
How? These laws do away with unions’ right to ask non-union members to help pay for the collective bargaining unions conduct to benefit ALL workers — union or non-union. Because the bottom line is, all workers at an organization benefit from the pay, benefits and protections union contracts provide. Employees who do not wish to belong to the union don’t have to pay union dues, simply the portion that covers the cost of bargaining. It’s only fair.
But throughout the years, via corporate control of media and campaign financing, efforts to demonize unions and collective bargaining have paid off. By and large Americans have fallen for these efforts. Union membership has declined, and not coincidentally, worker protections and wages have too. As Colin Gordon, professor of history at University of Iowa, writes on his blog for the Economic Policy Institute: “The wage effect alone underestimates the union contribution to shared prosperity... And unions not only raise the wage floor but can also lower the ceiling; union bargaining power has been shown to moderate the compensation of executives at unionized firms.” [http://www.epi.org/blog/union-decline-rising-inequality-charts/ ]
Many worker protections were won because of hard fought union battles, and today, we take most of them for granted: the 40-hour work week, employee benefits, paid vacation and safety regulations, to name a few. Unfortunately, after years of Corporate Conservative political influence, these benefits are no longer guaranteed.
Snyder’s lame-duck passage of a Right to Work law in Michigan follows a similar drive by Scott Walker in Wisconsin a year ago. In both cases, the initiative has been tied to the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and Americans for Prosperity, two organizations funded by the Koch brothers and other wealthy corporate moguls. [http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/12/michigan-right-to-work-unions.php]
These are the “big boys” Alvin sings about. Their goal is protecting their power and profit, not workers. So we’d best follow Alvin’s protagonist, who sings:
“I still remember where we marched side by side back in Gary, Indiana 1959.”
Because united we stand; divided we fall.
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
School kids aren’t the only bullies
As one of my Facebook friends noted, October wins the prize for “Awareness” month; among a long list of causes is bullying. Public service announcements, news broadcasts and school events all encouraged us to protect our children from bullying and teach them it is unacceptable behavior. Many programs added it only takes one or two dissenting voices to stop bullies in their tracks.
Fast forward to the election and events following, and I’m hearing an adult voice in my head sneer, “Do as I say, not as I do!”
In case you missed it, prior to the election, a number of corporate CEO’s threatened to lay off employees or cut hours if the president was re-elected. Such intimidation is bullying. And as an aside, such behavior is exactly why unions were formed.
But I digress. Now that President Obama has been re-elected, these same CEO’s are pledging to carry out their threats in public temper tantrums that demonstrate they have zero compassion for employees and customers – the very people who allow them to make a living.
Let’s start with Murray Energy CEO Robert Murray, whose company mines coal. As this Washington Post article outlines http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/after-obama-re-election-ceo-reads-prayer-to-staff-announces-layoffs/2012/11/09/e9bca204-2a63-11e2-bab2-eda299503684_story.html, he blames his decision to lay off employees in Ohio and Utah on voters’ decisive re-election of President Obama. However, as the article also notes, Murray’s business faces fierce competition from other energy suppliers, and his business practices have led to environmental disasters and charges of coercing employees to support Republicans.
Murray also cloaked his decision to fire employees in religion, reading a prayer before discharging them. In it, he slams the U.S. as a “country of redistribution” and selectively quotes scripture to support his action, a practice known as proof-texting. This allows Murray, and many others, to ignore Biblical calls for economic justice, from Moses through the prophets to Jesus and beyond. In fact, Jewish law in Leviticus 25 specifically calls for the return of wealth to the poor every 50 years via a festival termed the Jubilee.
But Murray isn’t the only CEO throwing a tantrum. Papa John’s pizza CEO John Schnatter previously railed against the Affordable Care Act and worked as a supporter and fundraiser for Romney.
This week, Schnatter announced ACA’s requirement for him to insure employees working more than 30 hours per week will require a 10-14 cent increase per pizza. Either that or he’ll be forced to cut employees or their hours, a practice already widely used by retail and service corporations to pad their profits.
Yet Caleb Melby at Forbes Magazine http://blogs.forbes.com/calebmelby/ crunched the numbers and concluded Papa John’s math is off. “So how much would prices go up, under these 50/50 conditions, if they were to fairly reflect the increased cost of doing business onset by Obamacare? Roughly 3.4 to 4.6 cents a pie.”
Melby lays out the entire picture by examining Papa John’s profits, dividends to shareholders, and Schnatter’s salary for the last few years. It left me wondering if Schnatter’s actions are simply an excuse to increase his profits by scapegoating Obamacare -- a business plan cloaked in politics.
So I ask, “How much is enough?” Does corporate America really need the profit margins they’ve been demanding to keep doors open and people working?
And how much intimidation and twisting of figures will citizens take before demanding facts and fairness? I don’t know about you, but I’ve had enough.
Fast forward to the election and events following, and I’m hearing an adult voice in my head sneer, “Do as I say, not as I do!”
In case you missed it, prior to the election, a number of corporate CEO’s threatened to lay off employees or cut hours if the president was re-elected. Such intimidation is bullying. And as an aside, such behavior is exactly why unions were formed.
But I digress. Now that President Obama has been re-elected, these same CEO’s are pledging to carry out their threats in public temper tantrums that demonstrate they have zero compassion for employees and customers – the very people who allow them to make a living.
Let’s start with Murray Energy CEO Robert Murray, whose company mines coal. As this Washington Post article outlines http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/after-obama-re-election-ceo-reads-prayer-to-staff-announces-layoffs/2012/11/09/e9bca204-2a63-11e2-bab2-eda299503684_story.html, he blames his decision to lay off employees in Ohio and Utah on voters’ decisive re-election of President Obama. However, as the article also notes, Murray’s business faces fierce competition from other energy suppliers, and his business practices have led to environmental disasters and charges of coercing employees to support Republicans.
Murray also cloaked his decision to fire employees in religion, reading a prayer before discharging them. In it, he slams the U.S. as a “country of redistribution” and selectively quotes scripture to support his action, a practice known as proof-texting. This allows Murray, and many others, to ignore Biblical calls for economic justice, from Moses through the prophets to Jesus and beyond. In fact, Jewish law in Leviticus 25 specifically calls for the return of wealth to the poor every 50 years via a festival termed the Jubilee.
But Murray isn’t the only CEO throwing a tantrum. Papa John’s pizza CEO John Schnatter previously railed against the Affordable Care Act and worked as a supporter and fundraiser for Romney.
This week, Schnatter announced ACA’s requirement for him to insure employees working more than 30 hours per week will require a 10-14 cent increase per pizza. Either that or he’ll be forced to cut employees or their hours, a practice already widely used by retail and service corporations to pad their profits.
Yet Caleb Melby at Forbes Magazine http://blogs.forbes.com/calebmelby/ crunched the numbers and concluded Papa John’s math is off. “So how much would prices go up, under these 50/50 conditions, if they were to fairly reflect the increased cost of doing business onset by Obamacare? Roughly 3.4 to 4.6 cents a pie.”
Melby lays out the entire picture by examining Papa John’s profits, dividends to shareholders, and Schnatter’s salary for the last few years. It left me wondering if Schnatter’s actions are simply an excuse to increase his profits by scapegoating Obamacare -- a business plan cloaked in politics.
So I ask, “How much is enough?” Does corporate America really need the profit margins they’ve been demanding to keep doors open and people working?
And how much intimidation and twisting of figures will citizens take before demanding facts and fairness? I don’t know about you, but I’ve had enough.
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Post-election: Where do we go from here?
Regardless of the outcome of this election, Americans need to unite if we expect to solve our collective problems. I have been thinking about that a lot as we approached Election Day, in large part as a consequence of get-out-the-vote canvassing.
Knocking on strangers’ doors to ask them a series of questions and hopefully move them to act is not an easy task. But what strikes me is the difficulty we have in engaging in conversation. I don’t think I have a threatening persona, so I am always bemused by people who refuse to open their doors to me.
I am also curious about the people from the other end of the political spectrum who flatly refuse to speak me. Are they so certain they are correct that they won’t waste time trying to change my mind? Or are they so afraid I might have some valid points they refuse to risk confronting that possibility?
Whatever the reason, I am saddened and disappointed at our society’s inability to converse honestly about our situation.
And yes, I’ve heard it’s “not polite to talk about politics or religion.” But you know, I think that’s flat out wrong. We can only learn and grow when we confront new or different ideas and grapple with them. We wouldn’t have a Constitution if members of the Continental Congress had been unable to meet, discuss (or argue) and negotiate a document for a new government for these United States.
No matter what the shouting talking heads on talk radio and political TV tell you, I’m willing to listen to your point of view. You just need to be prepared that I will ask you lots of questions and expect you to hear out my perspective. You might even be surprised to find we agree on points. This is how we make progress.
Contrast this to our Congress, particularly Conservative members, during the last four years. The entire Republican agenda has been to block the Democratic President at every turn; no negotiating. That is not governing.
Whether you are a Republican, Democrat, Independent or something else, tomorrow we will need to stand together to demand our new representatives work for citizen interests, not corporate dollars. If we expect to get anything out of our government, and the fourth estate of the press (corporate media especially), we are going to have to demand and protest for changes.
Because a citizen’s job doesn’t end with the vote — that’s where it begins. And I think the last 30 years demonstrate clearly my school superintendent friend’s belief “if you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu.”
I think that’s what Ben Franklin meant when he responded to the woman who asked about the results of the Continental Congress’ deliberations and the kind of government the new nation had.
According to the story, he responded, “A Republic – if you can keep it.”
Knocking on strangers’ doors to ask them a series of questions and hopefully move them to act is not an easy task. But what strikes me is the difficulty we have in engaging in conversation. I don’t think I have a threatening persona, so I am always bemused by people who refuse to open their doors to me.
I am also curious about the people from the other end of the political spectrum who flatly refuse to speak me. Are they so certain they are correct that they won’t waste time trying to change my mind? Or are they so afraid I might have some valid points they refuse to risk confronting that possibility?
Whatever the reason, I am saddened and disappointed at our society’s inability to converse honestly about our situation.
And yes, I’ve heard it’s “not polite to talk about politics or religion.” But you know, I think that’s flat out wrong. We can only learn and grow when we confront new or different ideas and grapple with them. We wouldn’t have a Constitution if members of the Continental Congress had been unable to meet, discuss (or argue) and negotiate a document for a new government for these United States.
No matter what the shouting talking heads on talk radio and political TV tell you, I’m willing to listen to your point of view. You just need to be prepared that I will ask you lots of questions and expect you to hear out my perspective. You might even be surprised to find we agree on points. This is how we make progress.
Contrast this to our Congress, particularly Conservative members, during the last four years. The entire Republican agenda has been to block the Democratic President at every turn; no negotiating. That is not governing.
Whether you are a Republican, Democrat, Independent or something else, tomorrow we will need to stand together to demand our new representatives work for citizen interests, not corporate dollars. If we expect to get anything out of our government, and the fourth estate of the press (corporate media especially), we are going to have to demand and protest for changes.
Because a citizen’s job doesn’t end with the vote — that’s where it begins. And I think the last 30 years demonstrate clearly my school superintendent friend’s belief “if you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu.”
I think that’s what Ben Franklin meant when he responded to the woman who asked about the results of the Continental Congress’ deliberations and the kind of government the new nation had.
According to the story, he responded, “A Republic – if you can keep it.”
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Will we vote for corporate capitalism or the common good?
As a business communicator, I admire a good marketing plan. For example, when Nike’s “Just Do It” campaign developed their ad targeting women, I was impressed. “I believe there’s an athlete in everyone,” one woman says in the signature ad. It helped move me off the couch to start jogging; I still buy Nike shoes. And it’s helped Nike weather troubles with athlete endorsements and factory conditions in Asia.
Since I’ve written a few marketing plans myself throughout the years, I’ve learned to spot them in action. And I’d been saying, “There has to be a marketing plan for conservative political interests somewhere,” when I stumbled across an article in August 2011, acknowledging the 40th anniversary of something called the Powell Memorandum. (Read the document here: http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/The-Lewis-Powell-Memo/) This memorandum, penned by former Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell, is the blueprint for American political history during the last 40 years.
Written in 1971 when Powell was working as an attorney and sitting on the board of 11 corporations, it outlines for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce an extensive list of tactics to protect the interests of America’s largest corporate citizens. Paranoid about liberal activism in the 60s, Powell believed corporate America should exercise much more political influence. His tactics include shaping the political environment within higher and secondary education via: staff appointments, speakers, textbooks and curriculum, especially in graduate schools of business.
With regard to the wider public, Powell suggested developing think tanks to craft research and messages designed to favor big business. To disseminate them, television, radio, print publications, books, journals and paid advertisements should all be used. Consequently, today most major media is owned by corporate conglomerates.
Finally, Powell suggested corporate powers turn their efforts to the political and judicial arenas. The key to this strategy was money – to both parties, with efforts targeted to wean Democrats from union influence. Yet over time, more dollars began to flow to conservative political challengers.
In a web article about the Powell Memorandum, Bill Moyers and Company posted an excerpt from Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson’s book Winner-Take-All Politics: (http://billmoyers.com/content/the-powell-memo-a-call-to-arms-for-corporations/2/) “By the end of the 1978 campaign, more than 60 percent of corporate contributions had gone to Republicans, both GOP challengers and Republican incumbents fighting off liberal Democrats. A new era of campaign finance was born: Not only were corporate contributions growing ever bigger, Democrats had to work harder for them. More and more, to receive business largesse, they had to do more than hold power; they had to wield it in ways that business liked.”
The height of this plan’s success was the current Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, unleashing loads of corporate cash into the current election.
Great American businessmen have long understood that a business cannot survive without customers. Henry Ford made sure to pay his employees a wage large enough to allow them to buy the cars they helped make.
But unfortunately, current corporate leaders (And I’m talking about large international companies, not small Main Street businesses.) have lost sight of their place in the American community, squeezing larger profits via staff cuts, government subsidies, tax breaks and public contracts without giving back via taxes and living wages to employees. Their leaders do not acknowledge responsibility for the common good.
As Hacker and Pierson’s book points out, this corporate agenda provides money to both political parties. Yet the majority now flows to Republican politicians, represented at the top by Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.
So no matter what you may feel about President Barack Obama, if you’re part of the 99 percent, following the money means you have a better shot with the incumbent. That’s your choice – corporate capitalists or the common good.
Since I’ve written a few marketing plans myself throughout the years, I’ve learned to spot them in action. And I’d been saying, “There has to be a marketing plan for conservative political interests somewhere,” when I stumbled across an article in August 2011, acknowledging the 40th anniversary of something called the Powell Memorandum. (Read the document here: http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/The-Lewis-Powell-Memo/) This memorandum, penned by former Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell, is the blueprint for American political history during the last 40 years.
Written in 1971 when Powell was working as an attorney and sitting on the board of 11 corporations, it outlines for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce an extensive list of tactics to protect the interests of America’s largest corporate citizens. Paranoid about liberal activism in the 60s, Powell believed corporate America should exercise much more political influence. His tactics include shaping the political environment within higher and secondary education via: staff appointments, speakers, textbooks and curriculum, especially in graduate schools of business.
With regard to the wider public, Powell suggested developing think tanks to craft research and messages designed to favor big business. To disseminate them, television, radio, print publications, books, journals and paid advertisements should all be used. Consequently, today most major media is owned by corporate conglomerates.
Finally, Powell suggested corporate powers turn their efforts to the political and judicial arenas. The key to this strategy was money – to both parties, with efforts targeted to wean Democrats from union influence. Yet over time, more dollars began to flow to conservative political challengers.
In a web article about the Powell Memorandum, Bill Moyers and Company posted an excerpt from Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson’s book Winner-Take-All Politics: (http://billmoyers.com/content/the-powell-memo-a-call-to-arms-for-corporations/2/) “By the end of the 1978 campaign, more than 60 percent of corporate contributions had gone to Republicans, both GOP challengers and Republican incumbents fighting off liberal Democrats. A new era of campaign finance was born: Not only were corporate contributions growing ever bigger, Democrats had to work harder for them. More and more, to receive business largesse, they had to do more than hold power; they had to wield it in ways that business liked.”
The height of this plan’s success was the current Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, unleashing loads of corporate cash into the current election.
Great American businessmen have long understood that a business cannot survive without customers. Henry Ford made sure to pay his employees a wage large enough to allow them to buy the cars they helped make.
But unfortunately, current corporate leaders (And I’m talking about large international companies, not small Main Street businesses.) have lost sight of their place in the American community, squeezing larger profits via staff cuts, government subsidies, tax breaks and public contracts without giving back via taxes and living wages to employees. Their leaders do not acknowledge responsibility for the common good.
As Hacker and Pierson’s book points out, this corporate agenda provides money to both political parties. Yet the majority now flows to Republican politicians, represented at the top by Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.
So no matter what you may feel about President Barack Obama, if you’re part of the 99 percent, following the money means you have a better shot with the incumbent. That’s your choice – corporate capitalists or the common good.
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Will we make an informed choice?
Ok, I admit it. I’m ticked off about the debate. Why?
Not because media pundits, who live for a good figurative shoving match, gave Round 1 to Romney. I’m angry because I see an unengaged citizenry refusing to acknowledge this stuff matters.
What set me off? Facebook.
Yeah, I know it’s a social networking site. People routinely post stupid things. I annoy people by sharing articles with an alternative perspective on politics and religion. I’m well aware most are probably ignored. But as one of my college professors used to say, “Even a blind pig occasionally finds an acorn.” Sometimes I get a person’s attention.
But I blew a gasket the morning after the debate because too many intelligent people I know refused to watch. Really, you’re going to opt for Honey Boo Boo?
Is it any wonder the American people get nothing from their representation in government?
The whole idea of a democracy is citizen involvement, but when citizens refuse to do their work, they have no right to complain about the product. Americans only want to show up every four years for the main event – the election of the President. And then the best we bring is some vague impression of who is “likeable” or “presidential.”
If we know anything about policy or the issues, it probably comes from an ad – TV or direct mail, like the one I received from the Romney campaign recently.
In the past year, both my husband and I were inexplicably registered as Republicans. The only response I got when I marched into the auditor’s office to correct that error was a shrug and a “wishful thinking, I guess.”
As a consequence, we now get Obama and Romney campaign literature. I tend to toss both, preferring to use my own research to evaluate records. However, this flier caught my attention, first, with a large photo of president Obama.
Next came the headline: “President Obama will continue to grow government. More runaway spending. High taxes. More jobs lost.”
That stopped me before I made it to the trash can because these claims are wrong.
First, let’s take the claim President Obama has grown government with runaway spending.
As Factcheck.org notes: “The truth is that the nearly 18 percent spike in spending in fiscal 2009 — for which the president is sometimes blamed entirely — was mostly due to appropriations and policies that were already in place when Obama took office.” http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-spending-inferno-or-not/ Yet this article goes on to explain at length the complexity of government spending and our current situation, making it clear no one party is to blame.
Second, will taxes increase under President Obama? Well, as this article on Think Progress notes, income taxes under Obama are at an historic low. http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/07/11/514384/taxes-30-year-low-obama/?mobile=nc%C2%A0 Factcheck backs that up. http://www.factcheck.org/2012/07/tax-facts-lowest-rates-in-30-years/
And in the future? Well, the Romney flier didn’t specify which taxes, but I’d guess they are including the cost of the Affordable Care Act. Again, I’ll defer to Factcheck: http://www.factcheck.org/2012/07/biggest-tax-increase-in-history/. Brooks Jackson writes: “In short, there are too many moving parts in both the ACA and in earlier tax laws to make simple comparisons that are valid for all purposes. . . . Despite all these uncertainties, one thing is abundantly clear. There’s no way the ACA’s tax and other revenue increases come close to being the largest in U.S. history.”
Finally, declaring President Obama will lose more jobs denies reality given reports this month that indicate he may finish this term with net job creation, as this Bloomberg article outlines: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-27/payroll-revisions-signal-economy-has-created-jobs-under-obama.html The Romney ad’s claim also makes no reference to the horrible economic conditions President Obama inherited. To deny his efforts to prevent greater economic turmoil is to deny reality.
But then acknowledging reality would mean admitting policies under the previous Republican administration led to the current economic uncertainty.
As Stephen Colbert once said, “It is a well known fact that reality has a liberal bias.” Unfortunately too many citizens pretend what they do won’t make any difference, so they can watch crappy reality TV without guilt.
If you plan to vote, do your homework.
Not because media pundits, who live for a good figurative shoving match, gave Round 1 to Romney. I’m angry because I see an unengaged citizenry refusing to acknowledge this stuff matters.
What set me off? Facebook.
Yeah, I know it’s a social networking site. People routinely post stupid things. I annoy people by sharing articles with an alternative perspective on politics and religion. I’m well aware most are probably ignored. But as one of my college professors used to say, “Even a blind pig occasionally finds an acorn.” Sometimes I get a person’s attention.
But I blew a gasket the morning after the debate because too many intelligent people I know refused to watch. Really, you’re going to opt for Honey Boo Boo?
Is it any wonder the American people get nothing from their representation in government?
The whole idea of a democracy is citizen involvement, but when citizens refuse to do their work, they have no right to complain about the product. Americans only want to show up every four years for the main event – the election of the President. And then the best we bring is some vague impression of who is “likeable” or “presidential.”
If we know anything about policy or the issues, it probably comes from an ad – TV or direct mail, like the one I received from the Romney campaign recently.
In the past year, both my husband and I were inexplicably registered as Republicans. The only response I got when I marched into the auditor’s office to correct that error was a shrug and a “wishful thinking, I guess.”
As a consequence, we now get Obama and Romney campaign literature. I tend to toss both, preferring to use my own research to evaluate records. However, this flier caught my attention, first, with a large photo of president Obama.
Next came the headline: “President Obama will continue to grow government. More runaway spending. High taxes. More jobs lost.”
That stopped me before I made it to the trash can because these claims are wrong.
First, let’s take the claim President Obama has grown government with runaway spending.
As Factcheck.org notes: “The truth is that the nearly 18 percent spike in spending in fiscal 2009 — for which the president is sometimes blamed entirely — was mostly due to appropriations and policies that were already in place when Obama took office.” http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-spending-inferno-or-not/ Yet this article goes on to explain at length the complexity of government spending and our current situation, making it clear no one party is to blame.
Second, will taxes increase under President Obama? Well, as this article on Think Progress notes, income taxes under Obama are at an historic low. http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/07/11/514384/taxes-30-year-low-obama/?mobile=nc%C2%A0 Factcheck backs that up. http://www.factcheck.org/2012/07/tax-facts-lowest-rates-in-30-years/
And in the future? Well, the Romney flier didn’t specify which taxes, but I’d guess they are including the cost of the Affordable Care Act. Again, I’ll defer to Factcheck: http://www.factcheck.org/2012/07/biggest-tax-increase-in-history/. Brooks Jackson writes: “In short, there are too many moving parts in both the ACA and in earlier tax laws to make simple comparisons that are valid for all purposes. . . . Despite all these uncertainties, one thing is abundantly clear. There’s no way the ACA’s tax and other revenue increases come close to being the largest in U.S. history.”
Finally, declaring President Obama will lose more jobs denies reality given reports this month that indicate he may finish this term with net job creation, as this Bloomberg article outlines: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-27/payroll-revisions-signal-economy-has-created-jobs-under-obama.html The Romney ad’s claim also makes no reference to the horrible economic conditions President Obama inherited. To deny his efforts to prevent greater economic turmoil is to deny reality.
But then acknowledging reality would mean admitting policies under the previous Republican administration led to the current economic uncertainty.
As Stephen Colbert once said, “It is a well known fact that reality has a liberal bias.” Unfortunately too many citizens pretend what they do won’t make any difference, so they can watch crappy reality TV without guilt.
If you plan to vote, do your homework.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
