Category Archives: Culture

Marketing Addiction.

Posted on by

The development of e-cigarettes was a good thing. It provided an opportunity for those addicted to nicotine and the act of smoking to replace tobacco cigarettes with something less harmful…not only less harmful to themselves, but everyone around them.

Of course, some greedy corporations can’t settle for a good thing. They have to find ways to turn a positive into a negative and, in the process, make millions.

Not content to sell e-cigarettes as a replacement for tobacco, companies like Lorillard have decided to create a whole new generation of buyers by marketing e-cigarettes in a variety of candy flavors and using celebrities to make their products seem cutting-edge “cool.” It’s a strategy right out of the playbook of tobacco cigarette brands from the fifties through the eighties. (Remember Joe Camel?) And, though tobacco companies have been forced to diversify, they have continued the same marketing strategies in Asia and other countries that lack regulations.

Unfortunately, the tobacco and e-cigarette industries are not alone. It’s well-known that the largest brewers in the US aim their advertising at males aged 30 and younger… the younger the better. The idea is that, if brewers can capture the attention of males who are younger than drinking age, those males will have already established brand preferences by the time they’re old enough to buy beer.  That explains the preponderance of TV commercials with girls in bikinis and adolescent humor.

Such tactics, while not illegal, are certainly unethical. But given the rampant greed of corporations, they’re unlikely to change.

When US Jobs Are Shipped Offshore, It’s In A Shipping Container.

Posted on by

Since Malcom McClean invented the modern shipping container in the late sixties, no individual item has had a greater impact on the US and world economies.  These large, steel and aluminum boxes can be filled with products, carried by truck to the nearest port, and loaded by crane onto a ship specifically designed to carry them.  Then, upon reaching the next port, the containers are stacked onto a rail car and carried across country, loaded onto another truck and hauled to a warehouse before being unloaded and the products distributed to stores.

Shipping containers have not only revolutionized shipping.  They have revolutionized manufacturing and distribution.  More than any other single factor, they have enabled and defined globalization.

In the process, they have eliminated jobs of dock workers and merchant mariners.  They nearly destroyed our railroads.  And they have allowed manufacturers to export jobs to countries with the lowest salaries and least regulations.  Indeed, the equipment from manufacturing plants in the US was likely shipped to new manufacturing plants in China and other parts of Asia in shipping containers.

True, these containers also bring us cheaper products.  But, following the loss of high-paying manufacturing jobs, an increasingly smaller percentage of Americans are able to afford them.

During a recent interview on National Public Radio, Rose George, author of Ninety Percent Of Everything; Inside Shipping, The Invisible Industry That Puts Clothes On Your Back, Gas In Your Car, Food On Your Plate, explained that the efficiency of the shipping container has impacted virtually every industry on every part of the planet.  For example, she noted it is now cheaper for Scotland’s fishing industry to load fish caught in the North Atlantic into containers and ship them to China to be filleted then shipped back than to have workers fillet them in Scotland!

This is good for the companies, good for China, and good for the consumer.  It’s bad for Scottish workers and bad for the environment.  For even though maritime shipping is, in itself, fuel efficient, such unnecessary shipping adds to the carbon emissions that accelerate climate change.  Ships and their sonar also create noise that disrupts communications of sea life, such as dolphins and whales.  And there is the inevitable pollution of waste from the ships.

There are other negative aspects of shipping containers.  Since they have overwhelmed ports around the world, there are far too many to be checked by customs and law enforcement, making it easier for smuggling rings to operate.  They have even been used to smuggle humans into the US.  The increased maritime traffic has also rejuvenated the once-dying pirate trade.  And increased shipping has accelerated the transfer of invasive species.

Often the shipping containers used to bring finished products to the US are filled with our toxic e-waste and shipped to countries that have few environmental regulations for the heavy metals to be reclaimed, damaging the environment and risking the health of low-paid workers in the process.

George’s book and another, The Box: How the Shipping Container Made the World Smaller, by Marc Levinson examine the scope of the container shipping industry and all of its impacts, both positive and negative, on our society.

Both books are fascinating reads.  But they could just as well have been titled How the Shipping Container Destroyed the American Middle Class.

Today’s Corporate CEO No One To Look Up To.

Posted on by

The CEO of a corporation is supposed to act as the rudder of the ship; a leader; someone that sets an example for the rest of the corporation’s employees. But, increasingly, CEOs set an example of greed and unethical, even criminal, behavior.

According to a recent study by the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), in 2012 the CEOs of large corporations were paid approximately 354 times as much as the average American worker. Worse, about 40 percent of the CEOs were fired for cause, paid fines or settlements for fraud, or resorted to asking the government to bail out their companies.

Some leadership!

The IPS study also found that about 30 percent of corporations led by the highest-paid CEOs were subsidized with taxpayer money. By taking advantage of a variety of tax deductions and loopholes, CEOs have been able to increase corporate profits while reducing or eliminating corporate taxes. And since most of these corporations are multinational, many have created P.O. Box “headquarters” in offshore tax havens to shelter corporate profits. By “gaming” the tax codes, the CEOs are able to pocket the savings for themselves.

Moreover, most CEO compensation is based on share price. That may seem like a good idea that encourages CEOs to work for the benefit of stakeholders. But the real reason for such compensation plans is self-interest. It’s easy for a CEO to make decisions that will increase sales and share prices over the short term, yet mortgage the company’s future. Unfortunately, many CEOs simply don’t care about the future because they don’t plan to be with the company more than 2-3 years. That’s all the time they need to be set for life.

But many want even more.

Unwilling to settle for multi-million dollar salaries, stock options, perks and a long list of benefits, some corporate CEOs create what amount to elaborate Ponzi schemes and a variety of high stakes gambling schemes using investors’ money. When their schemes fail, they seldom face charges and, even when they’re indicted, they’re seldom subjected to jail time. On those rare occasions when they are, “jail” often looks more like a country club and their sentences are often reduced or commuted.

Worse, when unscrupulous CEOs are fired, resign or are forced out, they almost always receive “golden parachutes” consisting of full retirement benefits and large lump sum payments allowing them to walk away with tens of millions in ill-gotten gains subsidized by investors and middle class taxpayers.  Meanwhile a high school dropout from the inner city who steals $50 can serve years of hard time.

It makes one wonder whatever happened to the nation that once proudly proclaimed “all men are created equal.”

Beware The Pendulum.

Posted on by

As a creative director for ad agencies and as a part-time college instructor, I used to teach that social trends and fashions responded like a pendulum with a 360-degree axis. The pendulum freely swings, but never back to exactly the same place twice.

I was reminded of that description while watching the ceremonies marking the 50-year anniversary of the March on Washington. In 1963, the US seemed hopelessly racist. In the Jim Crow South, blacks were segregated from whites. African-Americans were denied the right to vote. Peaceful civil rights demonstrators were met with fire hoses, police dogs, beatings and murder.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 began to change that.

In the last two presidential elections, African-Americans voted in record numbers helping to elect the first US president of African-American heritage. (I’ve always marveled that his Irish-American heritage is seldom mentioned because of the color of his skin.)

Obviously, the pendulum has swung a long way from 1963. But it seems to be swinging back.

Since the election of President Obama, numerous states in both the North and the South have passed restrictive voting laws to make it more difficult for minorities to vote. No other US president has been subjected to such angry derision. No other president has been repeatedly asked to show his papers to prove that he is a citizen. No other president has been interrupted during a State of the Union speech by a “Congressman” calling him a liar. No other president has been met by such congressional obstruction.

Racism did not disappear in the sixties. It is just more subtle. There are fewer racist killings, beatings and other hate crimes. Today, the racism is economic and institutionalized. Unemployment for African-Americans is roughly double that for whites. Many of those who do have jobs are not paid a living wage. Schools in African-American communities are grossly underfunded compared to those in white communities. African-Americans are not only three times more likely to be arrested as whites, they receive longer sentences for similar crimes.

Indeed, young African-American and Latino males are seen as a source of profit for the private prison industry. They are also disproportionately represented in our military and asked to fight wars to protect the economic interests of large corporations that are almost exclusively owned and managed by wealthy white Americans.

News organizations, once again, insert race into stories of crime. Media commentators feel comfortable talking about the disintegration of African-American families while ignoring the disintegration of white families. When minorities bring up discrimination and other issues of race, white political pundits refer to it as “playing the race card.” They would like us to believe that racism no longer exists. (Of course, it doesn’t for them.)

Most disturbing is the fact that the conservative majority of the United States Supreme Court has voted to weaken the Voting Rights Act and to undermine affirmative action.

On the anniversary of Martin Luther King’s iconic “I Have A Dream” speech, we should all take a moment to celebrate how far we’ve come. But only a moment. It’s time to get back to work to make sure the pendulum swings in the right direction again.

Rules Of War?

Posted on by

The assumed response to Syria’s use of chemical weapons raises an obvious question: Where do we draw the line in warfare?

Following World War I and World War II, the world came together at the Geneva Conventions which banned the use of chemical weapons and torture. They also provided for the humane treatment of prisoners of war. The Geneva Conventions did not, however, ban nuclear weapons (the US is still the only nation to use them). They did not ban carpet bombing of cities. They did not prohibit incendiaries that can level cities in a firestorm. They did not ban attacks on food supplies and infrastructure that can turn large populations of civilians into starving refugees. In fact, they did not control many weapons and techniques that are now routinely used in modern warfare.

Why draw the line on one type of weapon of mass destruction while ignoring others? Are unarmed civilians any more dead from a chemical attack than from a remote-controlled bomb? Is it more painful to die from a nerve gas attack than from explosives?

Long ago, many cultures romanticized warfare and bound it by rules of honor. But, with the development of weapons of mass destruction (including automatic weapons, artillery, bombs, chemical and biological weapons, and nuclear devices) today’s warfare has become a glorified video game in which those most at risk are unarmed, innocent civilians.

How absurd that it’s okay to kill masses of people in one way, but not another! How senseless that, although some forms of torture are banned, others are not! How idiotic that we can allow despots in Rwanda and Cambodia to murder tens of thousands, but draw the line in other countries.

Truth is, there has been no real honor between warriors for centuries. No country or culture that willingly participates in warfare has a corner on ethics and morality. The development of ever more lethal weapons has turned today’s warriors into breathing, bleeding killing machines. Is it any wonder, then, that these machines we create have such difficulty adapting to so-called polite society following their service?

What has happened in Syria is awful. But why is a red line drawn at the use of chemical weapons? If we level Damascus and its population with unseen missiles and bombs, is that better than allowing them to be killed by an unseen gas? What will be the outcome of our choosing to participate in this civil war? What will be the benefit?

Personally, I see none.

The Government Of Me.

Posted on by

As the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party continues to express outrage at our federal government, it becomes increasingly clear that the Tea Party simply does not understand the concept of a democratic republic. Its members ignore the fact that the Articles of Confederation were replaced by a Constitution that created a strong, centralized federal government. They ignore the fact that the power of the federal government versus the power of the states was thoroughly debated by our Founding Fathers, and the Federalists won. They quote the Constitution’s Tenth Amendment while ignoring all of its original Articles that gave the federal government sweeping powers to “provide for the general Welfare of the United States.”

Indeed, they even seem to ignore the “United” in United States!

At the heart of the Tea Party anger seems to be a misunderstanding of what constitutes a democracy. By its very nature, a democracy is based on majority rule. That means a minority, sometimes a significant minority, is often unhappy with the direction of our government. And, as the result of a quirk in our Electoral College, following the 2000 presidential election, a significant majority of our citizens were unhappy with the outcome, having voted for another candidate.

The Tea Party members refuse to acknowledge that President Obama was elected and re-elected by significant majorities of voters. They ignore the fact that the 2012 election was, in essence, a referendum on support for the middle class; for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid; for the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare).

They continue to claim that Obama was born in Kenya and should, therefore, be disqualified from holding the office of president. They continue to howl that financial and environmental regulations are “job killers.” They consider his signature accomplishment of making health care affordable to all Americans a socialist government “takeover.” And, instead of accepting majority rule, they seem determined to take away the voting rights of African-Americans, Latinos, students, women, and the poor – anyone who might vote against the Tea Party agenda.

In other words, as they wave the American flag and their pocket copies of the Constitution with only the Second and Tenth Amendments highlighted, they are attempting to cut out the very heart of our democracy…that of majority rule.

The Tea Party refuses to accept that our nation is evolving; that the minorities of brown and black are the majorities of the future. The “I’ve got mine, you can’t have yours” crowd can’t bear the idea of change; of giving power to others. I believe that is what’s behind their animosity toward President Obama.

They can’t accept forward-thinking ideas such as investing in our failing infrastructure while interest rates are at all-time lows. They can’t understand that a tax policy that punishes greed and rewards corporate investment in our nation benefits the vast majority of our citizens. They can’t grasp that jobs paying a living wage are necessary to the health of our nation and benefit us all. They can’t see that an environmental policy that conserves the health of our planet benefits everyone. As long as they have theirs, they refuse to accept the notion that affordable health care and a comfortable retirement are rights, not benefits.

Our Founding Fathers had the wisdom to create a government “of the people, by the people and for the people” – the majority of people.

If you want a government “of the people, by the people and for me” you’re in the wrong place. You should find a remote, uninhabited island where you can become supreme dictator. Otherwise, it’s time you learned to accept majority rule.

Betrayal Of Public Trust.

Posted on by

Now that Michigan’s GOP governor has forced the City of Detroit into bankruptcy, it’s expected that retired city workers will have to settle for a fraction of the pensions they were awarded under contract.

As a result of the expected bankruptcy settlement, many of the retirees may be forced to file bankruptcy themselves and find jobs to make up for their lost pensions. The governor and his supporters responded to that news by saying that’s what bankruptcy does. It forces all creditors to settle for the same percentage of their claims.

This is a complete reversal of the GOP position regarding the failure of the too-big-to-fail banks. Back then, many GOP leaders argued that the very executives whose decisions led to the banks’ failure should not be denied the multi-million dollar bonuses that were written into their six and seven-figure contracts.

But many of those same GOP leaders now argue that city workers who had been paid salaries as little as $19,000/year should agree to voiding their contracts as part of the bankruptcy. These contracts were the result of negotiations with city managers during which they agreed to give up short-term salary gains in lieu of a secure retirement.

Indeed, long-term retirement benefits have always been the incentive for taking government jobs over equivalent jobs in the private sector. Taking away or reducing the pension payments after the fact is not only a violation of the workers’ contract. It’s a complete betrayal of public trust. The natural outcome of such a violation will be to make government workers at every level demand higher salaries knowing that they will no longer be able to trust governments to live up to their obligations.

We have long known that we can’t count on corporations and private companies to live up to their promises. But we should be able to count on our governments to live up to theirs.

Arizona’s Religious Boat People.

Posted on by

For those of you who live outside the state, here’s a story that will give you some idea of the lunacy that is Arizona. Sure, you may know about our famous “dry heat” (like living in a sauna for 5 months out of the year), our Grand Canyon, our version of the Iron Curtain, our racist anti-immigrant law SB 1070, our finger-wagging governor and our famously right-wing politics.

But how much do you know about our anti-UN, anti-federal government, anti-science, anti-education, anti-evolution religious nuts?

As an example, I give you the family who attempted to relocate from the US to a tiny island in the island nation of Kiribati because of the parents’ belief that the US was interfering with their religious freedoms. Prior to loading their small children in a boat and setting sail, the father filed numerous documents in Yavapai County rejecting federal authority. In 2006, he signed a “Declaration of Citizenship” swearing allegiance to the Arizona Republic, claiming status as a “natural-born state citizen” and stating that he is “not a federal citizen of the United States.”

He described himself as a “non-resident alien of the White Race.” He renounced his Social Security number and failed to pay federal income taxes, owing the IRS $9,963 in back taxes.

When the family’s boat began to break apart in a storm, the family was rescued by a Chilean fishing vessel, transferred to a cargo ship and taken to Chile. They then asked the government that they had previously renounced to loan them $10,000 to transport them back to Arizona.

How nice! You denounce and renounce the US. You refuse to pay your taxes. Then when you need help, you come to the US with your hand out. Actually, you fit right in to Arizona. After all, many in the state hate the federal government and have tried to claim sovereignty over all federal lands within its borders, including the Grand Canyon. Yet Arizona gets far more in federal funding than it pays in federal income taxes.

So welcome back to Arizona. The other idiots have probably missed you.

GOP Is Racist? How Racist Of You To Bring It Up!

Posted on by

The right wing megaphone that is Fox News Channel and talk radio is in full throat defending the rodeo clown who appeared wearing an Obama mask. “It was just entertainment.” “The real racists are those who can’t take a joke,” say the wingnuts.

Really? It’s now racism for pointing out obvious racism?

Let’s review. The GOP committed to the Southern Strategy after President Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act into law. The whole idea was to appeal to white voters in the South who were angered by the end of Jim Crow.

Many Republicans have refused to accept that President Obama was born in the United States and claim that he is, therefore, not eligible to hold the office. In 2009, every Tea Party rally displayed racist signs such as “Send Obama Back To Kenya.”

In 2012, signs and bumper stickers were distributed saying “Put The White Back In The White House” and “Don’t Re-N—– in 2012.” During the Republican primaries, presidential candidates offered “self-deportation” as the only viable immigration reform. Some suggested that the border fence be electrified. And, at the RNC national convention, some Republican attendees threw nuts at a black cameraman who was covering the event.

Even worse, Republican-controlled states have passed a variety of new laws aimed at suppressing the votes of minorities and students even though there have been only a handful of documented cases of voter fraud nationally.

Across the country, there have been numerous examples of blatant racism displayed by Republican elected officials, such as Arizona State Representative Bob Thorpe who called the rodeo clown “crowd pleasing.” He also tweeted “Why is Holder now soft on crime? Perhaps: blacks = 12%-13% US population, but make up 40.1% (2.1 million) of male inmates in jail or prison!”

Being all too familiar with Thorpe, I can assure you the tweet was intended to demean African-Americans. But, in a way, Bad Bob demonstrates the consequences of racial discrimination by law enforcement and the courts. New York City’s “Stop & Frisk” program is far from unique, as most cities have similar, but unofficial programs. (Ask any African-American how often they have been stopped for “driving while black.”)

If the GOP and its Tea Party parasites want to shed the label of racism, it’s easy. All they have to do is stop doing and saying racist things!

Stop & Frisk Old White Men.

Posted on by

Since dimwits like Bill O’Reilly think the NYC Stop & Frisk program is so great, I propose it be redirected for a year or so. Instead of targeting minorities, let the police target white guys around Wall Street. After all, they have been responsible for far greater crimes than minorities, having stolen trillions of dollars over the past 30 years.

The bad guys are easy to spot. Instead of hoodies, they wear expensive suits and lounge in the back of black limos.

I, for one, would love to see them forced to spread their legs and arms, patted down and asked what they’re doing in the neighborhood and where they’re going. Then, if they object, they could be slammed to the ground, cuffed and taken to jail to be booked for obstructing an officer in his, or her, duties. Let them be held overnight and assigned a public defender (no overpaid Wall Street attorneys allowed).

Just for good measure, the police should also patrol the neighborhood of Fox News. After all, it has been the center of crimes against reality and facts. And don’t forget to include balding, angry white guys in the profile. Then they would be certain to catch O’Reilly in the dragnet.

Seriously, why not?

It would do the nation a lot of good, and it would almost certainly put an end to other senseless, racist measures. And as long as we’re on the subject let’s force cavity searches or similarly invasive procedures on all white male legislators. That might give them pause before voting for more mandatory invasive procedures on pregnant women.

Finally, let’s limit voting centers and voting hours in wealthy white neighborhoods forcing voters to stand in line for six, seven, eight hours or more. Then when they eventually get to the head of the line, they could have their IDs questioned and given a provisional ballot that may or may not be counted.