bureaucracybusters

Archive for the ‘Social commentary’ Category

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A SIGN OF UNEMPLOYMENT: PART ONE (OF SIX)

In Business, Law, Politics, Social commentary on March 14, 2013 at 12:00 am

Linda Smith, a resident of Menifee, California, wants to help her daughter land a job.

Lisa Smith, 36, has been out of the job market for almost 20 years.

Not that she hasn’t spent those years working.  She has–as a caregiver for her mother.

In 1996, Linda, now 61, was hit by a drunk driver and left with mild dementia.  She couldn’t remember names or safely travel by herself.  Holding down a steady job was impossible.

So Lisa quit her job as a full-time commercial model to care for her mother.  They lived off of Lisa’s part-time jobs, a government caregiver stipend, and Linda’s disability money.

But in June, 2012, a doctor found that Linda was well enough to live alone.

That was the good news.  The bad news was: There would be no more caregiver funds.

As Lisa’s applications for full-time work went unanswered, Linda wanted to help. So, in late February, she began standing on the side of the road, holding a sign.

Linda Smith holds her sign in Menifee, Calif.

Linda Smith

And offering $500 cash to any employer willing to hire her daughter at at least $15 an hour or more for an office job, such as an executive assistant.

This will be no easy task.  California has an unemployment rate of 9.8%–one of the worst in the nation.  And it’s a truism that if you’ve been out of the workforce more than six months, employers don’t want to know you.

You might have won the Medal of Honor or be the next Einstein or Steve Jobs.  But it doesn’t matter.

The basic employer mentality goes: “If someone else wasn’t responsible enough to hire you, why should I be?”

An article in the March, 2011 issue of Reader’s Digest gives the lie to the excuses so many employers use for refusing to hire.

Entitled “22 Secrets HR Won’t Tell You About Getting a Job,” it lays bare many of the reasons why America needs to legally force employers to demonstrate as much responsibility for hiring as job-seekers are expected to show toward searching for work.

Click here: 22 Secrets HR Won’t Tell You About Getting a Job | HT Staffing

Among the truths it reveals:

TRUTH NO: 1: Once you’re unemployed more than six months, you’re considered unemployable.

TRUTH NO. 2: As you’ve always suspected: It’s not what but who you know that counts.

TRUTH NO. 3: If you can, avoid HR entirely and seek out someone in the company you know. If you don’t know anyone, go straight to the hiring manager.

TRUTH NO. 4: Don’t assume that someone will read your cover letter. Many of them go straight into the garbage can.

TRUTH NO. 5: You will be judged on the basis of your email address–especially if it’s something like “Igetwasted@aol.com.”

TRUTH NO. 6: Don’t assume you’re protected against age discrimination just because it’s against the law. If you’re in your 50s or 60s, leave your year of graduation off your resume.

TRUTH NO: 7: Don’t assume you’re protected from unemployment just because it’s illegal to discriminate against applicants who have children. Many managers don’t want to hire people with children, and will go to illegal lengths to find out their parental status–like checking an applicant’s car for child safety seats.

TRUTH NO. 8: It’s harder to get a job if you’re fat. Hiring managers make quick judgments based on stereotypes.

TRUTH NO. 9: Many managers will assume you’re a loser if you give them a weak handshake.

TRUTH NO. 10: Encourage the interviewer to talk–especially about himself. Ego-driven interviewers love hearing the sound of their own voices and will assume you’re better-qualified than someone who doesn’t want to listen to them prattle.

The United States has reached the depths of shame when a willing-to-work American must bribe fat-pockets employers to show a sense of hiring responsibility.

Millions of Americans continue to blame President Barack Obama for the nation’s high unemployment rate. But no President can hope to resolve this problem until employers are legally required to act like patriots instead of predators.

Their responsibilities should encompass more than simply fattening their own pocketbooks and/or egos at the expense of their fellow Americans.

Such behavior used to be called treason.

It’s past time to recognize that a country can be betrayed for other than political reasons.  It can be sold out for economic ones, too:

  • Employers who enrich themselves by weakening their country—by throwing millions of qualified workers into the street and moving their plants to other countries—are traitors.
  • Employers who set up offshore accounts to claim their American companies are foreign-owned—and thus exempt from taxes—are traitors.
  • Employers who systematically violate Federal immigration laws—to hire illegal aliens instead of willing-to-work Americans—are traitors.

And with a new definition of treason should go new penalties–heavy fines and/or prison terms–for those who sell out their country to enrich themselves.

It is time, in short, to put a long-overdue end to the Theory of the Divine Right of Employers.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

GREED? THY NAME IS AYN

In Business, History, Politics, Social commentary on March 13, 2013 at 12:00 am

“Thirty years after her death, Ayn Rand’s ideas have never been more important.

“Unfettered capitalism, unregulated business, bare-bones government providing no social services, glorification of selfishness, disdain for Judeo-Christian morality—these are the tenets of Rand’s harsh philosophy.”

So reads the jacket blurb for Ayn Rand Nation: The Struggle for America’s Soul, by Gary Weiss.

Related image

“The timing of this book couldn’t be better for Americans who are trying to understand where in the hell the far-out right’s anti-worker, anti-egalitarian extremism is coming from,” asserts Jim Hightower, New York Times bestselling author of Thieves in High Places.

“Ayn Rand Nation introduces us to the godmother of such Tea Party craziness as destroying Social Security and eliminating Wall Street regulation. Weiss writes with perception and wit.”

For those who believe that Rand’s philosophy is the remedy for America’s economic and social ills, a 60 Minutes news story sounds a warning.

New England Compounding Center (NECC) pharmacy, based in Framington, Massachusetts, is under criminal investigation.  The reason: Shipping, in the fall of 2012, 17,000 vials of a steroid to be injected into the joints or spines of patients suffering chronic pain.

But instead of relieving pain, this steroid–contaminated with fungal meningitis–brought only agony and death.

The vials went out to thousands of pharmacies scattered across 23 states.

Forty-eight people have died, and 720 are still fighting horrific infections caused by the drug.

Just as Ayn Rand would have wanted, the pharmacy managed to avoid supervision by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

NECC was one of thousands of pharmacies that Congress exempted from FDA oversight. The reason: By law, they are allowed to make custom drugs for just one patient at a time.

But within a few years, NECC went national–and vastly expanded the quantities of drugs produced.

“The underlying factor is that the company got greedy and overextended and we got sloppy, and something happened,” John Connolly, a lab technician for the company, told 60 Minutes, the CBS news magazine.

And, also as Rand would have wanted, the four family members who founded the pharmacy were enriched by it–receiving over $16 million in wages and profits, from December 2011 through November 2012.

Related image

Bankruptcy records show the family members racked up $90,000 on corporate American Express credit cards, including charges made after the company shut down in early October.

A month before the first steroid death, Connolly says he warned his supervisor: “Something’s gonna happen, something’s gonna get missed and we’re gonna get shut down.”

His supervisor just shrugged.

NECC was shut down by the authorities.  Barry Cadden, the president and lead pharmacist of the company, was subpoenaed by Congress to testify.  In true gangster fashion, he pleaded the Fifth.

He claims he doesn’t know how the contamination started.

Which brings us back to Ayn Rand–and, more specifically, Ayn Rand Nation.

Among the themes explored in Weiss’ book:

  • Atlas Shrugged–Rand’s 1957 novel–depicts a United States where many of society’s most productive citizens refuse to be exploited by increasing taxation and government regulations and go on strike. The refusal evokes the imagery of what would happen if the mythological Atlas refused to continue to hold up the world.  The novel continues to influence those who aren’t hard-core Rand followers, who are known as Objectivists.
  • Ayn Rand’s novels dramatically affirm such bedrock American values as independence, creativity, self-reliance, and above all, a permanent distrust of government.
  • In Rand’s 1936 novel, We the Living–set in Soviet Russia–her heroine, Kira Argounova, tells a Communist: “I loathe your ideals; I admire your methods.” Objectivists believe in defending capitalism with the same ruthless methods of Communists.
  • In Rand’s ideal world, government would control only police, armies and law courts.  To her, a   government which performs more than these three functions is not simply impractical or expensive: it is evil.

Many of those who embrace Rand substitute rage for logic: Tea Partiers are furious about the 2008 Wall Street crash, yet they blame the government for it.

(Ironically, in a way, they are right: The government can be blamed–but not for too much regulation of greed-fueled capitalists but too little.)

Weiss asserts that Tea Party members resent the social and economic realities facing the nation, but lack a coherent intellectual framework to help them focus and justify their rage.  But Objectivists have–and offer–such a framework.

Thus, Tea Partiers form the ideological part of the right wing, and the clarity–and fanaticism–of their views gives them a power far out of proportion to their numbers.

Weiss believes that Rand is presenting a moral argument for laissez-faire capitalism, which means eliminating  Social Security, Medicare, public road system, fire departments, parks, building codes–and, above all, any type of financial regulation.

Weiss maintains that Rand’s moral argument must be directly confronted–and defeated–with moral arguments calling for charity and rationality.

Given the fanaticism of Tea Partiers and the right-wing Republicans they support, success in countering Rand’s “I’ve-got-mine-and-the-hell-with-everybody-else” morality is by no means assured.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

TAX FAVORS FOR THE RICH

In Business, Law, Politics, Social commentary on March 12, 2013 at 12:02 am

On December 10, 2012, Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber summoned lawmakers for a special (interest) session of the legislature.

The reason: To give Nike, Inc., a guarantee that it would be taxed only on in-state sales.

Nike had promised to spend at least $150 million and create at least 500 jobs in Oregon–if the legislature approved such a tax-guarantee bill.

Multinational corporations such as Nike and Intel relish the state’s current tax policy–which took effect in 2006. The reason: It saves them millions of dollars on state income taxes.

Oregon caters to such well-heeled companies because they provide thousands of jobs and revenues from personal income taxes for state programs.

The catch: Its tax policy–called the single-sales factor–taxes companies on their sales in Oregon while ignoring their worldwide operations.

Nike reported revenues of $6.5 billion for 2012.

Asked why he needed the bill so quickly, Kitzhaber said Nike officials were expressing “a sense of urgency” and he didn’t want to risk losing what could be a significant job-creation opportunity.

“They have to make their move as soon as possible,” he said.

In short, Nike is threatening to leave Oregon if it doesn’t get a tax-break guarantee.

Kitzhaber’s haste to appease a giant multinational sportswear company is yet another reason why America needs an Employers Responsibility Act (ERA).

Such legislation would ensure fulltime, productive employment for millions of capable, job-seeking Americans.  And it would achieve this goal without raising taxes or creating controversial government “make work” programs

If passed by Congress and vigorously enforced by the U.S. Departments of Justice and Labor, an ERA would legally require employers to demonstrate as much initiative for hiring as job-seekers are now expected to show in searching for work.

Among its provisions would be one to cover the above-mentioned type of corporate extortion:

The seeking of “economic incentives” by companies in return for moving to or remaining in cities/states would be strictly forbidden.

Such “economic incentives” usually:

  1. allow employers to ignore existing laws protecting employees from unsafe working conditions;
  2. allow employers to ignore existing laws protecting the environment;
  3. allow employers to pay their employees the lowest acceptable wages, in return for the “privilege” of working at these companies; and/or
  4. allow employers to pay little or no business taxes, at the expense of communities who are required to make up for lost tax revenues.

Employers who continue to make such overtures would be prosecuted for attempted bribery or extortion:

  1. Bribery, if they offered to move to a city/state in return for “economic incentives,”
  2. Extortion, if they threatened to move their companies from a city/state if they did not receive such “economic incentives.”

This would protect employees against artificially-depressed wages and unsafe working conditions; protect the environment in which these employees live; and protect cities/states from being pitted against one another at the expense of their economic prosperity.

To return to the Oregon story, “creating at least 500 jobs in Oregon” may sound like a lot, that doesn’t necessarily mean they will be high-paying, professional ones by which an employee can support himself and a family.

“Jobs” could also mean part-time jobs, which come without medical insurance benefits.

In the “Careers” section of Nike’s website, a prospective employee will find the following:

NIKE, Inc.’s competitive benefits program provides employees with the opportunity to stay fit, ensure the wellness of their families, and create a positive working environment. That is why every geography provides for variable health coverage, fitness center memberships, time off, retirement savings, and more.

Your particular benefits package will depend on your position, location, and years with the company. Here’s a look at what you might be eligible for.

  • Health insurance
  • Life & Accident insurance
  • Disability insurance
  • Retirement Savings Plan with a company contribution
  • Employee Stock Purchase Plan (15% discount)
  • Paid vacations and holidays
  • Paid sabbaticals
  • Product discounts
  • Onsite fitness center/fitness discounts
  • Transportation allowance/discount
  • Tuition assistance

Note the sentence: “Your particular benefits package will depend on your position, location, and years with the company.”

That sentence contains a lot of “if’s”–and the less time an employee has been with the company, the less likely s/he is to be found eligible for a fuller package of benefits.

It’s a safe bet that those who have just been hired–such as under Nike’s doing so in the immediate future–will not be eligible for full benefits.

Thus, these newly-hired employees may well find themselves struggling to pay for health and/or disability insurance.

And here’s another matter for consideration: Kitzhaber claimed that the average pay at Nike is a little above $100,000 a year–roughly twice the average for the rest of the state.

But how does Nike–or Kitzhaber–arrive at that figure?

On its face, it seems as though Nike is paying its avewrage employee $100,000 per year.  But that’s highly unlikely if the employee is acting as simply a glorified shoe salesman.

So Nike might have arrived at that figure by simply adding the total salaries of all its Oregon employees and then dividing that figure by the number of those employees.

At moments like this, it’s well to remember the warning of former British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli: “There are three kinds of lies–lies, damned lies and statistics.”

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

TIME TO FIND THE EXIT

In History, Politics, Social commentary on March 11, 2013 at 12:01 am

In April, 2010, Afghan president Hamid Karzai threatened to quit politics and join the Taliban if America kept pressuring him to enact reforms.

He accused the United States of interfering with Afghanistan’s affairs, and warned that the Taliban would become a legitimate resistance movement if America did not stop.

Hamid Karzai

Almost three years later, on March 10, 2013, Karzai accused the Taliban and America of conspiring to persuade Afghans that violence will worsen if most foreign troops leave.

It’s time for the United States to do in Afghanistan what it should have done in Vietnam: Declare victory and get out.

The history of American conflict in Afghanistan began on September 11, 2001.

On that date, Islamic highjackers slammed two jetliners into the World Trade Center in New York and one into the Pentagon in Washington, D.C.

A fourth plane, headed for the White House or Capitol Building, failed to reach its target when its passengers rioted–and the highjackers dove it into a Pennsylvania field.

The mastermind of the attacks was Osama bin Laden, a Saudi millionaire then living in Afghanistan, under protection by its ruling thugocracy, the Taliban.

The administration of President George W. Bush demanded his immediate surrender to American justice.

The Taliban refused.

So, on October 7, 2011–less than one month from the 9/11 attacks–American bombers began pounding Taliban positions.

The whole point of the campaign was to pressure the Taliban to surrender Bin Laden.

But the Taliban held firm.  Bin Laden holed up in the mountains of Tora Bora, and then ultimately escaped into Pakistan.

After December, 2001, American Intelligence completely lost track of Bin Laden.  CIA officials repeatedly said he was likely living in the “no-man’s-land” between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Osama bin Laden

Thus, there was no longer any point in pressuring the Taliban to surrender Bin Laden.

Still, the United States continued to commit forces to Afghanistan–to turn a primitive, warlord-ruled country into a modern-day democracy.

There was, admittedly, a great deal to detest about the Taliban:

  • When the Taliban ruled Afghanistan, they turned soccer stadiums into execution plazas for mass beheadings or shootings.
  • Taliban “fighters” have proven their “courage” by throwing acid into the faces of women who dared to attend school.

Taliban atrocities

  • On August 8, 1989, the Taliban attacked Mazar-i-Sharif. Talibanists began shooting people in the street, then moved on to mass rapes of women. Thousands of people were locked in containers and left to suffocate.
  • The Taliban forbade women to leave their homes unless accompanied by a male relative and wearing the burqa–a traditional dress covering the entire body. Those who disobeyed were publicly beaten.

Yet, as horrific as such atrocities were, these did not obligate the United States to spend eternity trying to bring civilization to this barbaric country.

And, in pursuing that goal, both the Bush and Obama administrations have repeatedly overlooked the following realities:

  • Hamid Karzai, the “president” of Afghanistan (2001-present) doesn’t belileve in democracy–despite American claims to support his efforts to bring this to Afghanistan.
  • His authority doesn’t extend beyond Kabul, and he is viewed by most Afghans as an illegitimate ruler, imposed by America.
  • American soldiers in Afghanistan feel surrounded by enemies and hamstrung by unrealistic orders to win “hearts and minds” at the risk of their own lives.
  • The Taliban poses no threat to the security of the United States.
  • Afghan “insurgents” are fighting American forces because (1) they are in a civil war; and (b) they believe their country has once again been occupied by foreigners.
  • Counterinsurgency is being preached as the key to defeating the Taliban in Afghanistan–where it hasn’t worked.
  • Americans entered Afghanistan without an exit strategy.

All these truths applied just as firmly to America’s failed misadventure in Vietnam.

Almost 50 years ago, American “grunts” felt about their so-called South Vietnamese allies as American troops now feel about their Afghan “allies.”

Dr. Dennis Greenbaum, a former army medic, summed up how Americans had really felt about their supposed South Vietnamese allies.

American surgical team in Vietnam

“The highest [priority for medical treatment] was any U.S. person. The second highest was a U.S. dog from the canine corps.  The third was NVA [North Vietnamese Army].  The fourth was VC [Viet Cong].

“And the fifth was ARVIN [Army of the Republic of South Vietnam], because they had no particular value,” said Greenbaum.

When you despise the “ally” you’re spending lives and treasure to defend, it’s time to pack up.

American soldiers long ago recognized that “friendly Afghans” were worthless as allies.  But only recently has the Pentagon publicly admitted that ”friendly Afghans” pose as great a threat to American troops as self-declared Talibanists.

Can anyone recall such “ally-on-American” attacks by British or French soldiers during World War II?  Of course not.

It’s past time for the Obama administration to recognize this–and start shipping those troops home.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

REMEMBERING THE ALAMO: PART ONE (OF THREE)

In History, Social commentary on March 6, 2013 at 12:36 am

John Wayne fought and died there–cinematically.

So did Richard Widmark, Laurence Harvey, Fess Parker, Sterling Hayden, Jason Patrick, Billy Bob Thornton and Patrick Wilson.

Today–March 6, 2013–marks the 177th anniversary of the fall of the Alamo, a crumbling former Spanish mission in the heart of San Antonio, Texas.

The combatants: 180 to 250 Texans (or “Texians,” as many of them preferred to be called) vs. 2,000 Mexican soldiers.

On the Texan side three names predominate: David Crockett, James Bowie and William Barret Travis. “The Holy Trinity,” as some historians ironically refer to them.

Crockett, at 49, was the most famous man in the Alamo. He had been a bear hunter, Indian fighter and Congressman. Rare among the men of his time, he sympathized with the Indian tribes he had helped subdue in the War of 1812.

He believed Congress should honor the treaties made with the former hostiles and opposed President Andrew Jackson’s effort to move the tribes further West.

Largely because of this, his constituents turned him out of office in November, 1835. He told them they could go to hell; he would go to Texas.

James Bowie, at 40, had been a slave trader with pirate Jean Lafitte and a land swindler. His greatest claim to fame lay in his fame as a knife-fighter.

This grew out of his participating in an 1827 duel on a sandbar in Natchez, Mississippi. Bowie was acting as a second to one of the duelists who had arranged the event.

After the two duelists exchanged pistol shots without injury, they called it a draw. But those who had come as their seconds had scores to settle among themselves–and decided to do so. A bloody melee erupted.

Bowie was shot in the hip and then impaled on a sword cane wielded by Major Norris Wright, a longtime enemy. Drawing a large butcher knife he wore at his belt, he gutted Wright, who died instantly.

The brawl became famous as the Sandbar Fight, and cemented Bowie’s reputation across the South as a deadly knife fighter.

William Barret Travis had been an attorney and militia member. Burdened by debts and pursued by creditors, he fled Alabama in 1831 to start over in Texas. Behind him he left a wife, son, and unborn daughter.

From the first, Travis burned to free Texas from Mexico and see it become a part of the United States.

In January, 1836, he was sent by the American provisional governor of Texas to San Antonio, to fortify the Alamo. He arrived there with a small party of regular soldiers and the title of lieutenant colonel in the state militia.

On the Mexican side, only one name matters: Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, president (i.e., absolute dictator) of Mexico. After backing first one general and would-be “president” after another, Santa Anna maneuvered himself into the office in 1833.

Texas was then legally a part of Mexico. Stephen F. Austin, “the father of Texas,” had received a grant from Spain–which ruled Mexico until 1821–to bring in 300 American families to settle there. The Spaniards wanted to establish a buffer between themselves and warring Indian tribes like the Comanches.

These immigrations continued after Mexico threw off Spanish rule and obtained its independence.

But as Americans kept flooding into Texas, the character of its population changed, alarming its Mexican rulers.

The new arrivals did not see themselves as Mexican citizens but as transplanted Americans. They were largely Protestant, as opposed to the Catholic Mexicans. And many of them not only owned slaves but demanded the expansion of slavery–a practice illegal under Mexican law.

In October, 1835, fighting erupted between settlers and Mexican soldiers. In November, Mexican forces took shelter in the Alamo, which had been built in 1718 as a mission to convert Indians to Christianity. Since then it had been used as a fort–by Spanish and then Mexican troops.

Texans lay siege to the Alamo from October 16 to December 10, 1835. With his men exhausted, and facing certain defeat, General Perfecto de Cos, Santa Anna’s brother-in-law, surrendered. He gave his word to leave Texas and never take up arms again against its settlers.

Texans rejoiced. They believed they had won their “war” against Mexico.

But others knew better. One was Bowie. Another was Sam Houston, a former Indian fighter, Congressman and protégé of Andrew Jackson.

Still another was Santa Anna, who styled himself “The Napoleon of the West.”  In January, 1836, he set out from Mexico City at the head of an army totaling about 7,000.

He planned the 18th century version of a blitzkrieg, intending to arrive in Texas and take its “rebellious foreigners” by surprise.

His forced march proved costly in lives, but met his objective. He arrived in San Aotonio with several hundred soldiers on February 23, 1836.

The siege of the Alamo–the most famous event in Texas history–was about to begin.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

EXIT THE GECKO, ENTER THE PIG AND BULLY

In Bureaucracy, Business, Social commentary on March 4, 2013 at 11:53 pm

There’s been a changing-of-the-guard at GEICO insurance.

Exit the understated, British-accented gecko.

Enter the pig–and the grunting black bully.

For years GEICO has taken a light-hearted, humorous approach to its advertising.

The company that designed these ads accomplished the seemingly impossible:  It recruited a friendly reptile as its spokesman and, in doing so, turned a dull subject like insurance into something fun.

Remember the ad about the towering GEICO executive who tells the gecko: “GEICO is about trust.  So let’s demonstrate how that trust works.  I’ll fall backward–and you catch me.”

And as the man starts to fall back, the gecko mutters, “Oh, dear.”

But apparently GEICO wanted something more than humor in its advertising–something that would shake up those who watched it.

And the ads the company is now running will definitely do that.  But GEICO may wind up regretting it.

Enter the new GEICO spokesman: a pig–porcine, hairless, goofy-voiced.  And he’s sitting in the driver’s seat of a stalled car next to a beautiful brunette.

And it’s clear the woman is clearly feeling aroused and wants to do something romantic.  Or, maybe the word for it is perverted.

But the pig is–fortunately–nervous, and just wants to talk about how wonderful GEICO is.

Now, think about this for a moment.

If you’re Jewish, Hindu or Muslim, eating pork is strictly forbidden.  The meat is considered “unclean” because pigs don’t sweat–thus trapping all the impurities within.

So if you’re an adman who wants to design commercials that will appeal to the widest number of viewers, you’ve already flunked out.

And if eating pork is verboten to millions of Jews, Muslims and Hindus, having a romantic tryst with a pig is off-limits to anyone outside the confines of a porno theater.

After all, how twisted do you have to be to date out of your own species?

So what is the message GEICO is trying to send here?  That if you buy GEICO insurance, you can make it with a beautiful chick even if you’re a pig?

Then there’s the bullying black basketball player as GEICO sales rep–played by real-life former basketball star Dikembe Mutombo.

Mutombo is a Congolese American retired professional basketball player who once played for the Houston Rockets.  He was an eight-time All-Star and a record-tying four-time NBA Defensive Player of the Year.

Outside of basketball, he has become known for his humanitarian work.

But you’d never know it by the GEICO ad.

First, clad in basketball attire, he darts into an office and throws something at a startled executive and his secretary.

Then, grunting, he appears in a laundromat and prevents a woman from tossing clothing from a dryer to her cart by knocking it out of the air as she throws it in.  Then he wiggles his finger at her.  Thus the woman ends up with a clean garment made dirty.

Finally, he charges into a supermarket and knocks a cereal box out of the hands of a little boy as he’s about to toss it into a shopping cart.  The box explodes, spilling cereal onto the floor and the little boy as the grunting black man races off.

GEICO Dikembe Mutombo Commercial – Happier Than Dikembe Mutombo Blocking a Shot

What is the message GEICO is trying to send here?  That violence and intimidation are fun?  That you’d better buy GEICO insurance–or else?

Even more ominous: This ad premiered during the week that another bullying black man was making headlines across the nation.

From February 3 to 12, Christopher Dorner, a former member of the Los Angeles Police Department, waged war on the LAPD.

Dorner blamed the agency for his firing in 2008.  First he published a “manifesto” on his Facebook page and then set about a killing spree that killed four people.  Two police officers died, and three others were wounded.

The rampage ended on February 12, in an isolated cabin near Big Bear Lake, California.  Surrounded by lawmen from several police agencies, the cabin set ablaze by pyrotechnic tear gas, Dorner shot himself in the head rather than surrender.

It’s likely that these ads will join a parade of others that produced results other than those intended:

  • Pepsi’s slogan, “Come alive with Pepsi” bombed in China, where it was translated into: “Pepsi brings your ancestors back from the grave.”
  • The Dairy Association’s slogan, “Got milk?” became–when translated into Spanish–“Are you lactating?”
  • Purdue Chicken thought it had a winner with: “It takes a tough man to make a tender chicken.”  But the Spanish mistranslation came out: “It takes a sexually stimulated man to make a chicken affectionate.”

Clearly the executives at GEOCO need to ask themselves two questions:

  1. What are we trying to achieve with these commercials?
  2. What messages are these ads sending to our targeted audiences?

More often than not, there is a disconnect between the two.

As in the case of the latest GEICO commercials.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

BOOBS AND BUREAUCRATS

In Bureaucracy, Social commentary on March 4, 2013 at 12:19 am

Those who watched the 85th Academy Awards on February 24 witnessed some truly moving episodes:

  • Dame Shirley Bassey, at 76, still able to belt out the title song to the classic James Bond film, “Goldfinger.”  True, she could no longer hit some of the high notes she reached almost 50 yearss ago.  But she made up for that with the final line–“He loves gold!”–where the word “gold” seemed to last forever.
  • Daniel Day-Lewis receiving a standing invitation when he won the Best Actor Oscar for his portrayal of America’s 16th President in “Lincoln”.  The audience seemed to be paying tribute not only to his brilliant performance but to the greatness of Abraham Lincoln himself.
  • Adele’s turning the latest James Bond song, “Skyfall,” into a beautiful anthem of love and defiance in the face of oblivion.

But these wonderful episodes were proceeded by one that wasn’t so wonderful:

We saw your boobs
We saw your boobs
In the movie that we saw, we saw your boobs.
Meryl Streep, we saw your boobs in “Silkwood”
Naomi Watts’ in “Mulholland Drive”
Angelina Jolie, we saw your boobs in “Gia”
They made us feel excited and alive.

Yes, that was Seth MacFarlane’s opening number as host of the show.

As he danced and “sang” across the stage,, no doubt many viewers were stunned by the sheer juvenile antics of the segment.  It was is if a classroom of junior high-school boys had been turned loose to “honor” the actresses they most wanted to boff.

Anne Hathaway, we saw your boobs in “Brokeback Mountain”
Halle Berry, we saw them in “Monster’s Ball”
Nicole Kidman in “Eyes Wide Shut”
Marisa Tomei in “The Wrestler,” but
We haven’t seen Jennifer Lawrence’s boobs at all.

Making it all the more bizarre: MacFarlane was accompanied by the Los Angeles Gay Men’s Chorus.  For this group, the lyrics “We Saw Your Butt” would have been far more appropriate.

Here was a group of tuxedo-wearing men, supposedly paying tribute show to the greatest actresses in today’s Hollywood.  So what did they “pay tribute” to?

The actresses’ singing talent?

Their acting talent?

Their greatest roles?

Don’t be stupid.

What the song failed to mention, however, was that several of the actress’ topless moments occurred during rape scenes.

Actress Jane Fonda–no stranger to sexually-alluring films–offered a scathing commentary on her website:

“I agree with someone who said, ‘If they want to stoop to that, why not list all the penises we’ve seen?’

“Better yet, remember that this is a telecast seen around the world watched by families with their children and to many this is neither appropriate or funny.”

So the question naturally arises: Why didn’t this occur to the men–and Hollywood is still almost entirely a man’s world–planning the 2013 Oscars?

This is, after all, Hollywood’s most important show.  Those who oversee this event must decide:

  • Who will be chosen as host.
  • Who will be invited as guests.
  • The songs that will be showcased.
  • The number of rehearsals.
  • The best wasy to provide security for the attendees.

Given the time and effort devoted to making this “Hollywood’s finest hour,” someone should have said: “This is a disgusting skit that will offend every actress at the ceremony–and God knows how many viewers!”

Many reviewers of the Oscars ceremony have put the blame entirely on MacFarlane.  After all, the “humor” of the song was very much in keeping with the offensive material found in his comedy series, Family Guy.

One Family Guy show featured a musican number called “Down’s Syndrone Girl.”  Among its lyrics:

You wanna take that little whore
And spin her on the dancing floor,
But boy, before you do a single twirl,
You must impress that effervescing,
Self-possessing, no BS-ing
Down’s Syndrome girl.

Click here: Family guy – that down syndrome girl – YouTube

But the Oscars isn’t a one-man show.  It’s a huge assembly of talent–singers, dancers, choreographers, lighting technicians, makeup artists, special effects masters.

Not to mention a parade of distinguished actors, singers and directors chosen to present awards to those who are to be honored.

Any number of these people could have spoken up and said: “I refuse to be a part of a show that disgraces itself in this way.”

But if any one person must assume final blame for this number, it’s Howard Winchel “Hawk” Koch, Jr., the president of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.

Koch is a movie producer and assistant director, and the former road manager for the musical groups The Dave Clark Five and The Supremes.

Among the film successes with which he’s been involved: The Way We Were (1973); Chinatown (1974); Marathon Man (1976); Heaven Can Wait (1978).

Clearly the instincts that brought him so far through the entertainment business utterly failed him at the 2013 Oscars.

So, ultimately, the buck has to stop with Koch.  But everyone else who held a supervisory position with the event stands equally guilty.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

MACHIAVELLI WAS RIGHT

In Business, History, Law, Social commentary on March 1, 2013 at 12:37 am

In 1513, Niccolo Machiavelli, the Florentine statesman who has been called the father of modern political science, published his best-known work: The Prince.

Niccolo Machiavelli

Among the issues he confronted was how to preserve liberty within a republic.  And key to this was mediating the eternal struggle between the wealthy and the poor and middle class.

Machiavelli deeply distrusted the nobility because they stood above the law.  He saw them as a major source of corruption because they could buy influence through patronage, favors or nepotism.

Successful political leaders must attain the support of the nobility or general populace.  But since these groups have conflicting interests, the safest course is to choose the latter.

…He who becomes prince by help of the [wealthy] has greater difficulty in maintaining his power than he who is raised by the populace.  He is surrounded by those who think themselves his equals, and is thus unable to direct or command as he pleases. 

But one who is raised to leadership by popular favor finds himself alone, and has no one, or very few, who are not ready to obey him.   [And] it is impossible to satisfy the [wealthy] by fair dealing and without inflicting injury upon others, whereas it is very easy to satisfy the mass of the people in this way. 

For the aim of the people is more honest than that of the [wealthy], the latter desiring to oppress, and the former merely to avoid oppression.  [And] the prince can never insure himself against a hostile population on account of their numbers, but he can against the hostility of the great, as they are but few.

The worst that a prince has to expect from a hostile people is to be abandoned, but from hostile nobles he has to fear not only desertion but their active opposition.  And as they are more far seeing and more cunning, they are always in time to save themselves and take sides with the one who they expect will conquer. 

The prince is, moreover, obliged to live always with the same people, but he can easily do without the same nobility, being able to make and unmake them at any time, and improve their position or deprive them of it as he pleases.

Unfortunately, political leaders throughout the world–including the United States–have ignored this sage advice.

The results of this wholesale favoring of the wealth and powerful have been brilliantly documented in a recent investigation of tax evasion by the world’s rich.

In 2012, Tax Justice Network, which campaigns to abolish tax havens, commissioned a study of their effect on the world’s economy.

The study was entitled, “The Price of Offshore Revisited: New Estimates for ‘Missing’ Global Private Wealth, Income, Inequality and Lost Taxes.”

http://www.taxjustice.net/cms/upload/pdf/Price_of_Offshore_Revisited_120722.pdf

The research was carried out by James Henry, former chief economist at consultants McKinsey & Co.  Among its findings:

  • By 2010, at least $21 to $32 trillion of the world’s private financial wealth had been invested virtually tax-­free through more than 80 offshore secrecy jurisdictions.
  • Since the 1970s, with eager (and often aggressive and illegal) assistance from the international private banking industry, private elites in 139 countries had accumulated $7.3 to $9.3 trillion of unrecorded offshore wealth by 2010.
  • This happened while many of those countries’ public sectors were borrowing themselves into bankruptcy, suffering painful adjustment and low growth, and holding fire sales of public assets.
  • The assets of these countries are held by a small number of wealthy individuals while the debts are shouldered by the ordinary people of these countries through their governments.
  • The offshore industry is protected by pivate bankers, lawyers and accountants, who get paid handsomely to hide their clients’ assets and identities.
  • Bank regulators and central banks of most countries allow the world’s top tax havens and banks to hide the origins and ownership of assets under their supervision.
  • Although multilateral institutions like the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), the IMF and the World Bank are supposedly insulated from politics, they have been highly compromised by the collective interests of Wall Street.
  • These regulatory bodies have never required financial institutions to fully report their cross-­border customer liabilities, deposits, customer assets under management or under custody.
  • Less than 100,000 people, .001% of the world’s population, now control over 30% of the world’s financial wealth.
  • Assuming that global offshore financial wealth of $21 trillion earns a total return of just 3% a year, and would have been taxed an average of 30% in the home country, this unrecorded wealth might have generated tax revenues of $189 billion per year.

Summing up this situation, the report notes: “We are up against one of society’s most well-­entrenched interest groups. After all, there’s no interest group more rich and powerful than the rich and powerful.”

Fortunately, Machiavelli has supplied a timeless remedy to this increasingly dangerous situation:

  • Assume evil among men–and most especially among those who possess the greatest concentration of wealth and power.
  • Carefully monitor their activities–the way the FBI now regularly monitors those of the Mafia and major terrorist groups.
  • Ruthlessly prosecute the treasonous crimes of the rich and powerful–and, upon their conviction, impose severe punishment.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

THE OSCARS: “LINCOLN’S” LEGACY: PART ONE (OF TWO)

In History, Politics, Social commentary on February 27, 2013 at 12:09 am

Argo won for Best Picture atthe 2013 Academy Awards ceremony.   But, in the long run, it will be Lincoln who is deservingly remembered–and loved.

Argo focuses on a humiliating episode that most Americans would like to forget.  On November 4, 1979, at the climax of the Iranian revolution, militants stormed the U.S. embassy in Tehran, taking 52 Americans hostage.

But, in the midst of the chaos, six Americans managed to slip away and find refuge in the home of the Canadian ambassador.  Knowing it was only a matter of time before the six were found and likely killed, a CIA “exfiltration” specialist offered a risky–and ultimately successful–plan to smuggle them out of the country.

While Argo wrings cheers from American audiences for the winning of this small victory, it cannot erase the blunt truth of the Iranian hostage crisis: For more than 14 months, American diplomats waited helplessly for release–while America proved unable to effect it.

By contrast, Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln celebrates a far greater victory: the final defeat of human slavery in the United States.

And it teaches lessons about the past that remain equally valide today–such as that racism and repression are not confined to any one period or political party.

At the heart of the film: Abraham Lincoln (Daniel Day-Lewis) wants to win ratification of what will be the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. An amendment that will forever ban slavery.

True, Lincoln, in 1862, had issued the Emancipation Proclamation. This-–in theory-–freed slaves held in the Confederate states that were in rebellion against the United States Government.

But Lincoln regards this as a temporary wartime measure.

He fears that, once the war is over, the Supreme Court may rule the Proclamation unconstitutional. This might allow Southerners to continue practicing slavery, even after losing the war.

To prevent this, Congress must pass an anti-slavery amendment.

But winning Congressional passage of such an amendment won’t be easy.

The Senate had ratified its passage in 1864. But the amendment must secure approval from the House of Representatives to become law.

And the House is filled with men-–there are no women members during the 19th  century-–who seethe with hostility.

Some are hostile to Lincoln personally. One of them dubs him a dictator-–”Abraham Africanus.” Another accuses him of shifting his positions for the sake of expediency.

Other members–-white men all-–are hostile to the idea of “equality between the races.”

To them, ending slavery means opening the door to interracial marriage–especially marriage between black men and white women. Perhaps even worse, it means possibly giving blacks-–or women–-the right to vote.

To understand the Congressional debate over the Thirteenth Amendment, it’s necessary to remember this:  In Lincoln’s time, the Republicans were the party of progressives.

The party was founded on an anti-slavery platform.  Its members were thus reviled as “Black Republicans.”

And until the 1960s, the South was solidly Democratic.  Democrats were the ones defending the status quo–slavery–and opposing freed blacks in the South of Reconstruction and long afterward.

In short, in the 18th century, Democrats in the South acted as Republicans do now.

The South went Republican only after a Democratic President–Lyndon B. Johnson–rammed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 through Congress.

Watching this re-enactment of the 1865 debate in Lincoln is like watching a rerun of the recent Presidential campaign.  The same mentalities are at work:

  • Those (in this case, slave-owners) who already have a great deal want to gain even more at the expense of others.
  • Those (slaves and freed blacks) who have little strive to gain more or at least hang onto what they still have.
  • Those who defend the privileged wealthy refuse to allow their “social inferiors” to enjoy similar privileges (such as the right to vote).

During the 2012 Presidential race, the Republicans tried to bar those likely to vote for President Barack Obama from getting into the voting booth.  But their bogus “voter ID” restrictions were struck down in courts across the nation.

In the end, however, it is Abraham Lincoln who has the final word.  Through diplomacy and backroom dealings (trading political offices for votes) he wins passage of the anti-slavery amendment.

The movie closes with a historically-correct tribute to Lincoln’s generosity toward those who opposed him–in Congress and on the battlefield.

It occurs during Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address: “With malice toward none, with charity for all….To bind up the nation’s wounds.  To care for him who shall have bourne the battle, and for his widow and his orphan….”

Listening to those words, one is reminded of Mitt Romney’s infamous comments about the “47%: “

Well, there are 47% of the people who…are dependent upon government, who believe that–-that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they’re entitled to healthcare, to food, to housing, to you name it.”

Watching Lincoln, you realize how incredibly lucky we were as a nation to have had such leadership when it was most needed.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

THE REAL “TAKERS”: THE RICH

In Business, History, Politics, Social commentary on February 26, 2013 at 1:08 am

Ann Coulter, the Republican version of the Miss America Nazi, was devastated by the November 6 defeat of Mitt Romney.

“People are suffering,” she whined. “The country is in disarray. If Mitt Romney cannot win in this economy, then the tipping point has been reached. We have more takers than makers and it’s over. There is no hope.”

Actually, Coulter was right–but not in the way she thought she was.

The “takers” are not the “have-nots” who depend on government for assistance.  They are the “more-than-haves” who cheat the government of billions in lost tax revenues.

In 2012, Tax Justice Network, which campaigns to abolish tax havens, commissioned a study of their effect on the world’s economy.

The study was entitled, “The Price of Offshore Revisited: New Estimates for ‘Missing’ Global Private Wealth, Income, Inequality and Lost Taxes.”

http://www.taxjustice.net/cms/upload/pdf/Price_of_Offshore_Revisited_120722.pdf

The research was carried out by James Henry, former chief economist at consultants McKinsey & Co.  Among its findings:

  • By 2010, at least $21 to $32 trillion of the world’s private financial wealth had been invested virtually tax-­free through more than 80 offshore secrecy jurisdictions.
  • Since the 1970s, with eager (and often aggressive and illegal) assistance from the international private banking industry, private elites in 139 countries had accumulated $7.3 to $9.3 trillion of unrecorded offshore wealth by 2010.
  • This happened while many of those countries’ public sectors were borrowing themselves into bankruptcy, suffering painful adjustment and low growth, and holding fire sales of public assets.
  • The assets of these countries are held by a small number of wealthy individuals while the debts are shouldered by the ordinary people of these countries through their governments.
  • Local elites continue to vote with their financial feet while their public sectors borrow heavily abroad.
  • First World countries do most of the borrowing.
  • Of the $7.3–$9.3 trillion of offshore wealth belonging to residents of these 139 countries, the top 10 countries account for 61% and the top 20 for 81%.
  • The offshore industry has many levels of protection: Private bankers, lawyers and accountants get paid handsomely to hide their clients assets and identities.  These groups also maintain influential lobbies.
  • Bank regulators and central banks of most individual countries typically view private banks as key clients.  They have long permitted the world’s top tax havens and banks to conceal the ultimate origins and ownership of assets under their supervision, especially those held in off-balance sheet trusts and
    fiduciary accounts.
  • Although multilateral institutions like the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), the IMF and the World Bank are supposedly insulated from politics, they have been highly compromised by the collective interests of Wall Street.
  • These regulatory bodies have never required financial institutions to fully report their cross-­border customer liabilities, deposits, customer assets under management or under custody.
  • All conventional measures of inequality sharply understate the levels of income and wealth inequality at both the country and global level.
  • Less than 100,000 people, .001% of the world’s population, now control over 30% of the world’s financial wealth.
  • The impact on lost tax revenue may be huge–large enough to make a significant difference to the finances of nations.
  • Assuming that global offshore financial wealth of $21 trillion earns a total return of just 3% a year, and would have been taxed an average of 30% in the home country, this unrecorded wealth might have generated tax revenues of $189 billion per year.

Summing up this situation, the report notes: “We are up against one of society’s most well-­entrenched interest groups. After all, there’s no interest group more rich and powerful than the rich and powerful.”

Yet the study reveals two bright spots for countries fed up with being bled dry by those parasites whose allegiance runs only to their wallets.

  1. A huge pile at least $21 trillion of untapped financial wealth has been discovered–monies that can be called upon to help solve the most pressing global problems.
  2. A substantial fraction of this wealth is being managed by the top 50 players in the global private banking industry.

As a result, these findings allow nations’ leaders to:

  • Prevent the abuses that have lead to off-the-books wealth accumulation in the future.
  • Make use of the huge stock of accumulated, untaxed wealth that is already there, as well as the steady stream of untaxed earnings that it generates.

It was Stephen Decatur, the naval hero of the War of 1812, who famously said: “Our country, right or wrong.”

Billionaire tax-cheats like those uncovered in the above-cited report have coined their own motto: “My wallet–first and always.”