Shocking memo from the International Brotherhood of Teamsters:
"The 'Little Guy' Is Losing in American Politics"
The gem:
"The fight is about whether the government should protect corporate power to enrich a few billionaires, or restrict corporate power to protect the liberty and property of the average American."
So who's winning?
"I'll tell you who is winning: It isn't the little guy."
Showing posts with label Americana. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Americana. Show all posts
11.02.2010
10.28.2010
Another non-environmental wonder
Highlights from one of those magical New York Times lovefests-masquerading-as-debates between op-ed columnists David Brookes (fake conservative and resident troublemaker) and Gail Collins (semi-humorous, relentlessly progressive, sometime feminist):
David Brooks: Gail, are you coming down to Washington for the Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert Rally to Restore Sanity? I’m pretty sure I’ll go out of curiosity and because I’ve never seen 100,000 Priuses in one place.
Gail Collins: One thing I love about you is that if there’s a rally in Washington, you’re there. Democrats, Tea Party, Comedy Central. If the libertarian cat lovers march on Washington, I count on hearing your personal report.
David Brooks: The problem was I couldn’t be as consistently witty as you and Maureen Dowd and also I could never figure out how to blend the humor with the substantive points. I found that to do humor I had to exaggerate so much it undermined the argument. You manage to write a column that combines wit with point of view. I wonder if you’ve wrestled with this tension that defeated me.
Gail Collins: Well, that would be my life’s work. While yours would be saving democracy.
David Brooks: Gail, are you coming down to Washington for the Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert Rally to Restore Sanity? I’m pretty sure I’ll go out of curiosity and because I’ve never seen 100,000 Priuses in one place.
Gail Collins: One thing I love about you is that if there’s a rally in Washington, you’re there. Democrats, Tea Party, Comedy Central. If the libertarian cat lovers march on Washington, I count on hearing your personal report.
David Brooks: The problem was I couldn’t be as consistently witty as you and Maureen Dowd and also I could never figure out how to blend the humor with the substantive points. I found that to do humor I had to exaggerate so much it undermined the argument. You manage to write a column that combines wit with point of view. I wonder if you’ve wrestled with this tension that defeated me.
Gail Collins: Well, that would be my life’s work. While yours would be saving democracy.
Another non-environmental wonder
The New York Times on Obama's appearance on The Daily Show last night:
"Late-night television has come a long way since Bill Clinton, then a presidential candidate, played his saxophone for Arsenio Hall in 1992."
You can say that again.
"Late-night television has come a long way since Bill Clinton, then a presidential candidate, played his saxophone for Arsenio Hall in 1992."
You can say that again.
10.25.2010
Gem of the day
I've said in the past, with a nice grain of salt, that it can't get any worse with BP. Well, here's another gem--it's kind of an uber-gem, but not really because it won't come as a surprise to anyone who is: a. Familiar with the relentless cycle of American politics, and/or b. Familiar with the mind-blowing tactics of major oil companies, especially our friends at BP. As trusty stalwart of the progressive scene The Guardian reports:
"BP and several other big European companies are funding the midterm election campaigns of Tea Party favourites who deny the existence of global warming or oppose Barack Obama's energy agenda."
We're not talking that much money, apparently: a piddling $25,000 from BP. Still, it's $25k too much for a company that is supposed to be tearing its hair out over, oh I don't know, large-scale dilemmas such as how to allocate the Gulf of Mexico relief fund.
But here's where it gets extraordinary. The total sum contributed by BP, BASF, Bayer and Solvay--some $240,000, to winners who include the classic climate denier James Inhofe--actually exceeds that on the books from the Koch Brothers, who came in at $217,000. Caveat: these numbers are, of course, all that is officially on the books. It doesn't include other, shall we say, more 'intangible' forms of persuasion such as lunches at the Four Seasons and such.
What a nice start to a Monday.
"BP and several other big European companies are funding the midterm election campaigns of Tea Party favourites who deny the existence of global warming or oppose Barack Obama's energy agenda."
We're not talking that much money, apparently: a piddling $25,000 from BP. Still, it's $25k too much for a company that is supposed to be tearing its hair out over, oh I don't know, large-scale dilemmas such as how to allocate the Gulf of Mexico relief fund.
But here's where it gets extraordinary. The total sum contributed by BP, BASF, Bayer and Solvay--some $240,000, to winners who include the classic climate denier James Inhofe--actually exceeds that on the books from the Koch Brothers, who came in at $217,000. Caveat: these numbers are, of course, all that is officially on the books. It doesn't include other, shall we say, more 'intangible' forms of persuasion such as lunches at the Four Seasons and such.
What a nice start to a Monday.
10.20.2010
Gem of the day
What kind of energy future does Mississippi Senator Roger Wicker imagine? It's a dangerous question to ask, but since it really delivers such a gem, here's his answer, based heavily on anecdotal evidence:
"I was in New York City the other day, and you know what? I saw a bunch of people driving gasoline-powered vehicles. I think we're going to be on petroleum for decades to come."
"I was in New York City the other day, and you know what? I saw a bunch of people driving gasoline-powered vehicles. I think we're going to be on petroleum for decades to come."
10.07.2010
Gem of the day
Another mind-blowingly stupid move from the US: West Virginia (which, word to the wise, currently has a Democratic governor) sues the Obama administration AND the EPA over new federal rules on mountaintop removal mining. Witness the pallid justification:
“Over the past year and a half, we have been fighting President Obama’s administration’s attempts to destroy our coal industry and way of life in West Virginia,” Manchin said today. “We are asking the court to reverse EPA’s actions before West Virginia’s economy and our mining community face further hardship.”
“Over the past year and a half, we have been fighting President Obama’s administration’s attempts to destroy our coal industry and way of life in West Virginia,” Manchin said today. “We are asking the court to reverse EPA’s actions before West Virginia’s economy and our mining community face further hardship.”
9.27.2010
Another non-environmental wonder
A masterful--and typically dramatic--piece of analysis from the New York Times yesterday examining Karl Rove's reemergence onto the GOP scene. The title alone is ingenious: 'Rove Returns'. Here's the gem though:
"In 2004, the Republican master strategist Karl Rove led weekly sessions at his Washington residence where, over big plates of his butter-smothered “eggies” and bacon slabs, he planned the re-election of President George W. Bush — and what he hoped would be lasting Republican dominion over Democrats."
Bacon slabs, eh? So what was on the table this year?
"Over takeout chicken pot pies, the group — the Republican fund-raiser Fred Malek, the onetime lobbyist and Bush White House counselor Ed Gillespie, and former Vice President Dick Cheney’s daughter Mary Cheney, among others — agreed on plans for an ambitious new political machine that would marshal the resources of disparate business, nonprofit and interest groups to bring Republicans back to power this fall."
"In 2004, the Republican master strategist Karl Rove led weekly sessions at his Washington residence where, over big plates of his butter-smothered “eggies” and bacon slabs, he planned the re-election of President George W. Bush — and what he hoped would be lasting Republican dominion over Democrats."
Bacon slabs, eh? So what was on the table this year?
"Over takeout chicken pot pies, the group — the Republican fund-raiser Fred Malek, the onetime lobbyist and Bush White House counselor Ed Gillespie, and former Vice President Dick Cheney’s daughter Mary Cheney, among others — agreed on plans for an ambitious new political machine that would marshal the resources of disparate business, nonprofit and interest groups to bring Republicans back to power this fall."
9.23.2010
Something that's actually good
Rising out of the ashes of professional commentary on Deepwater Horizon, there's finally--at long last--a voice of reason. Yes, it's still a discussion focused on image, but it's something.
David Jones, power CEO of firm Havas, delivers his perspective on BP as a case-in-point of what he calls the decade of damage'--where greenwashing no longer cuts it. My favorite quote:
"I'm not saying the oil business is easy and if tomorrow we all had to live without oil we would be in serious trouble. But you don't have to change your logo to a flower and give everyone the impression that you press wild daisies for a living. That's one of the reasons why the backlash against them was so harsh."
Just to add some context to his discussion, however, here's his glowing take on Wal-Mart's achievements:
"It completely re-engineered its reputation in North America and became one of the most respected and admired companies in terms of what it was doing. A decade earlier, it had real [image] problems," he says. "The critical point was that it was genuine and it probably did more to change its supply chain and logistics in terms of sustainability than any major company has ever done."
Indeed, the sheer visibility and scale of Wal-Mart's environmental commitments has done practically more than anything else to change the American corporate landscape on sustainability. But Wal-Mart is still painfully missing major commitments to the social dimension of sustainability. This article still rings true, even 6 years later, analysing the extraordinary lengths to which Wal-Mart has gone to dominate American retail and, in doing so, sell its workers wretchedly short.
David Jones, power CEO of firm Havas, delivers his perspective on BP as a case-in-point of what he calls the decade of damage'--where greenwashing no longer cuts it. My favorite quote:
"I'm not saying the oil business is easy and if tomorrow we all had to live without oil we would be in serious trouble. But you don't have to change your logo to a flower and give everyone the impression that you press wild daisies for a living. That's one of the reasons why the backlash against them was so harsh."
Just to add some context to his discussion, however, here's his glowing take on Wal-Mart's achievements:
"It completely re-engineered its reputation in North America and became one of the most respected and admired companies in terms of what it was doing. A decade earlier, it had real [image] problems," he says. "The critical point was that it was genuine and it probably did more to change its supply chain and logistics in terms of sustainability than any major company has ever done."
Indeed, the sheer visibility and scale of Wal-Mart's environmental commitments has done practically more than anything else to change the American corporate landscape on sustainability. But Wal-Mart is still painfully missing major commitments to the social dimension of sustainability. This article still rings true, even 6 years later, analysing the extraordinary lengths to which Wal-Mart has gone to dominate American retail and, in doing so, sell its workers wretchedly short.
Another non-environmental wonder
The Wonk Room at CAP breathlessly describes old Bill at the annual Clinton Global Initiative:
"Clinton, relaxed and slim, held court with a dazzling mastery of policy details, wit, and storytelling."
"Clinton, relaxed and slim, held court with a dazzling mastery of policy details, wit, and storytelling."
9.21.2010
Another non-environmental wonder
The extraordinary joy that was the patriotic uprising of the Tea Party protest two weeks ago in Washington. Visual highlights appear below. For those who would fain explore further such delights, look no further than here.
Bonus gem
In an ingenious maneuver certain to bring clarity to the climate debate and seismically shift American perceptions on the need to act, White House science guru John Holdren delivers this gem:
'In a speech in Oslo on Sept. 6, Dr. Holdren called “global warming” a “dangerous misnomer” because it implied that the impact of greenhouse gases would be gradual, uniform across the planet and “quite possibly benign.” A better term would be “global climate disruption,” Dr. Holdren said.'
Right.
'In a speech in Oslo on Sept. 6, Dr. Holdren called “global warming” a “dangerous misnomer” because it implied that the impact of greenhouse gases would be gradual, uniform across the planet and “quite possibly benign.” A better term would be “global climate disruption,” Dr. Holdren said.'
Right.
9.09.2010
Another non-environmental wonder
David Brooks: Here in D.C., it’s press 1 for English, press 2 for Swedish, and if you press 2 the tax collectors sweep in, take half your income and force you to read those books about the girl with the dragon tattoo. (I liked the first one, but the second one is as slow and lifeless as a Nordic winter.)
9.07.2010
Another non-environmental wonder
I googled Dick Cheney today to check up on how it's going for our favorite ex vice-prez. Check this out: in a stunning twist of fate, his former chief of staff, the lovely David Addington is now--sharp intake of breath--headed for the Heritage Foundation. I'll now take a pause for a period of ungovernable Olympian mirth.
And if tepid press inquiries are any indicator, he's headed for prime 'uncontactable' star status:
"A Heritage spokesman referred all questions today to a voice mailbox with Addington’s name"
Wow, his own voice mailbox? Did we mention digital? Yes, the Heritage Foundation has computers. And phones with mailboxes, too.
But get this, here's the cherry on the cake:
"He is succeeding Stuart Butler, a policy analyst who is starting a new “think tank within a think tank” at Heritage."
Zing!
And if tepid press inquiries are any indicator, he's headed for prime 'uncontactable' star status:
"A Heritage spokesman referred all questions today to a voice mailbox with Addington’s name"
Wow, his own voice mailbox? Did we mention digital? Yes, the Heritage Foundation has computers. And phones with mailboxes, too.
But get this, here's the cherry on the cake:
"He is succeeding Stuart Butler, a policy analyst who is starting a new “think tank within a think tank” at Heritage."
Zing!
9.06.2010
Gem of the day
As I noted previously, the profoundly illogical Wall St Journal op-ed by Dr. Aneel Karnani--'The Case Against Corporate Social Responsibility'--continues to get a volume of responses, with varying degrees of effectiveness. Some of my favorite responses (you'll be able to tell why just from the title) include these two gems:
Unfortunately, for the most part, the responses from the green business community largely miss the point. Most of them recycle the basic sustainability = profit arguments--intangible value to brand from reputational enhancement, the importance of long-term views for managing risk, energy efficiency delivers cost savings, etc.
I have to ask, what about the impact on the sustainability 'debate' from the mere fact that an article with this kind of title is published in one of America's most significant news outlets? This is a communications disaster. Especially considering that 'the case against CSR' as a title doesn't accurately reflect what the purpose of the article actually is.
Here's to hoping that article dies a long slow death and fails to attract any more attention.
Unfortunately, for the most part, the responses from the green business community largely miss the point. Most of them recycle the basic sustainability = profit arguments--intangible value to brand from reputational enhancement, the importance of long-term views for managing risk, energy efficiency delivers cost savings, etc.
I have to ask, what about the impact on the sustainability 'debate' from the mere fact that an article with this kind of title is published in one of America's most significant news outlets? This is a communications disaster. Especially considering that 'the case against CSR' as a title doesn't accurately reflect what the purpose of the article actually is.
Here's to hoping that article dies a long slow death and fails to attract any more attention.
8.24.2010
Another non-environmental wonder
Please note innovative melange of the words 'repudiate' and 'refute' into the masterpiece that is 'refudiate'.
8.23.2010
Gem of the day
The Wall Street Journal wow us--again, I should add--with a phenomenon of an article. I'll let the title speak for itself:
"The Case Against Social Corporate Responsibility"
So you can get an idea of the level of depth we're dealing with, here's the introductory sentence:
"Can companies do well by doing good? Yes—sometimes."
Sounds good! So what's the thesis of his 'case' against CSR?
"Very simply, in cases where private profits and public interests are aligned, the idea of corporate social responsibility is irrelevant: Companies that simply do everything they can to boost profits will end up increasing social welfare."
Nice and simple. I can see the linear correlation of the graph now: economic growth = increased human well-being. Sounds great. The author moves on to cite various harmonies of profit-seeking business and social welfare--the usual suspects of energy efficiency, fuel-efficient vehicles, healthy food--and delivers this whopper based on his narrow selection of evidence:
"It is the relentless maximization of profits, not a commitment to social responsibility, that has proved to be a boon to the public in these cases."
And therefore:
"Still, the fact is that while companies sometimes can do well by doing good, more often they can't. Because in most cases, doing what's best for society means sacrificing profits."
His solution? Government regulation, with 'self-regulation' as an alternative. It's been awhile since I've read something in a major news outlet that is not only this reprehensible, but also fundamentally illogical and ignorant. If we're going to reduce the idea of CSR to a simple business proposition, it's certainly not a 'financial calculation'--it's managing short and long-term risks.
These are risks that every shareholder faces because, at the end of the day, every shareholder is also a stakeholder. It's about the health risks of pollution and poorly manged corporate supply chains. It's about justice and equity in the developing world--and the developed world, for that matter, as anyone who's ever paid a wee visit to, say, Detroit, would know--it's about the risks to delivering core products posed by declining ecosystem services. Etc. And, of course, it's about climate change.
When you realize that all corporations depend on the planet, and the many, many natural services it provides for free, to go about the very business this author is claiming is jeopardised by CSR 'obligations', you just have to laugh. Or cry.
Dear Wall Street Journal, please stop publishing pure B.S. coursing out of business schools that still teach business methods from the 1950s. Thanks!
"The Case Against Social Corporate Responsibility"
So you can get an idea of the level of depth we're dealing with, here's the introductory sentence:
"Can companies do well by doing good? Yes—sometimes."
Sounds good! So what's the thesis of his 'case' against CSR?
"Very simply, in cases where private profits and public interests are aligned, the idea of corporate social responsibility is irrelevant: Companies that simply do everything they can to boost profits will end up increasing social welfare."
Nice and simple. I can see the linear correlation of the graph now: economic growth = increased human well-being. Sounds great. The author moves on to cite various harmonies of profit-seeking business and social welfare--the usual suspects of energy efficiency, fuel-efficient vehicles, healthy food--and delivers this whopper based on his narrow selection of evidence:
"It is the relentless maximization of profits, not a commitment to social responsibility, that has proved to be a boon to the public in these cases."
And therefore:
"Still, the fact is that while companies sometimes can do well by doing good, more often they can't. Because in most cases, doing what's best for society means sacrificing profits."
His solution? Government regulation, with 'self-regulation' as an alternative. It's been awhile since I've read something in a major news outlet that is not only this reprehensible, but also fundamentally illogical and ignorant. If we're going to reduce the idea of CSR to a simple business proposition, it's certainly not a 'financial calculation'--it's managing short and long-term risks.
These are risks that every shareholder faces because, at the end of the day, every shareholder is also a stakeholder. It's about the health risks of pollution and poorly manged corporate supply chains. It's about justice and equity in the developing world--and the developed world, for that matter, as anyone who's ever paid a wee visit to, say, Detroit, would know--it's about the risks to delivering core products posed by declining ecosystem services. Etc. And, of course, it's about climate change.
When you realize that all corporations depend on the planet, and the many, many natural services it provides for free, to go about the very business this author is claiming is jeopardised by CSR 'obligations', you just have to laugh. Or cry.
Dear Wall Street Journal, please stop publishing pure B.S. coursing out of business schools that still teach business methods from the 1950s. Thanks!
8.20.2010
Another non-environmental wonder
Frank Rich serenades with this astounding flowery gem:
"To many progressives, Obama’s too-cool handling of the disaster was a confirmation of a fatal character flaw—a professorial passivity that induced him to prematurely surrender the sacred “public option” in the health care debate and to keep too many of his predecessor’s constitutional abridgements in place at home and at Gitmo."
If for some strange reason you're interested in reading more, it's here.
"To many progressives, Obama’s too-cool handling of the disaster was a confirmation of a fatal character flaw—a professorial passivity that induced him to prematurely surrender the sacred “public option” in the health care debate and to keep too many of his predecessor’s constitutional abridgements in place at home and at Gitmo."
If for some strange reason you're interested in reading more, it's here.
8.19.2010
Another non-environmental wonder
"A new national survey by the Pew Research Center finds that nearly one-in-five Americans (18%) now say Obama is a Muslim, up from 11% in March 2009. Only about one-third of adults (34%) say Obama is a Christian, down sharply from 48% in 2009. Fully 43% say they do not know what Obama's religion is."
And a bonus nugget of true delight:
"The Republican Party continues to be more widely viewed as friendly toward religion than the Democratic Party. However, both parties are facing declines in the percentages saying they are friendly to religion."
8.18.2010
Gem of the day
Don't miss it: an exclusive interview with Greta van Susteran of Fox News, husky huffer extraordinaire, and Sarah Palin. And not just Sarah Palin--her husband Todd too.The subject? Flyin' over ANWR to determine, once and for all, if there's any nature worth saving there. Their conclusion? Guess.
VAN SUSTEREN: You know, Todd, it struck me that it's quite flat and there's not a lot of -- I didn't see a lot of animal life or anything. How far south is it like this? What's the terrain like?
SARAH PALIN, FORMER ALASKA GOVERNOR, FOX CONTRIBUTOR: You can look about 60 miles south and still see what we're seeing right now. So yes, as Todd's suggesting, the fund-raiser pictures and the Web sites that show waterfalls and moose and mountain ranges and Dahl sheep climbing along shell (ph) -- that's not the real ANWR.
So just because there aren't charismatic glimpses of biodiversity, there's 'no animal life'? Right. I know what you're thinking: it can't get any better than that. But oh yes, it does. Witness:
VAN SUSTEREN: Well, let me -- let's -- let me compare for a second, though. If -- right now, there's drilling in Prudhoe Bay...
PALIN: Yes.
VAN SUSTEREN: ... in that area. That -- that's actively going on. That is on -- that's onshore.
PALIN: Right.
VAN SUSTEREN: And then there's some offshore.
PALIN: Right.
VAN SUSTEREN: But different from the Gulf of Mexico in that it's not very deep.
PALIN: Oh, different -- way different than the Gulf of Mexico, where those are unprecedented areas that they're drilling in, miles and miles under water, far offshore. No, Alaska is engaged aggressively and very responsibly in the onshore and shallow water off.
8.17.2010
Bonus bonus gem
Here's one of the gems he delivered in an inane interview with the New York Times on Sunday:
"Some people believe in CO2 so strongly it trumps every other thought that they’ve got, so we wouldn’t expect them to favor coal mining,” Mr. Blankenship said. “Some people believe that the country should be socialized so they are opposed to free enterprise. I mean, you have to have your own beliefs, your own core beliefs, your own strengths and do what you think is right. You can’t do what others believe is right, you have to do what you believe is right.”
Ingenius.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)