The Monty Python Flying Circus is one of my favorite comedy shows, and their BBC series produced in the late 60s and early 70s was an influence on a lot of other comedy shows in the 80s and 90s, and even up to today.
This is one of my favorite sketch of all time, The Spanish Inquisition, because it makes fun of religion (I think... haha).
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
陈升 -- 丽江的春天
Arrghh... I can't believe I missed his album just by a few days while I was back in Singapore... Now I am waiting for friends to help me buy the album and send it to me here.
A simple riff, simple song. Reminds me of the song Pi somehow.
A simple riff, simple song. Reminds me of the song Pi somehow.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Jens Lekman -- At the Department of Forgotten Songs
An absolutely emotive song by Jens Lekman (from his singles collection Oh, You Are So Silent, Jens), a Swedish singer-songwriter, who reminds me of Scott Walker.
Atheism and Medical Care
Atheists have generally been described as 'cold', 'aloof', 'uncaring' and 'immoral' by a lot of religious people. With all the religious preaching about caring for the poor, the findings described in this article found on the American Atheist website does seem to be surprising, and probably a slap-in-the-face to all those people who like to label atheist as people who are uncaring about other people.
=======================================================================
Atheist doctors more likely to care for the poor than religious ones
Atheist doctors are likely to practice medicine among the underprivileged than religious physicians, even though most religions call on the faithful to serve the poor, according to the results of large cross-sectional survey of US medical practitioners published in Annals of Family Medicine.
Researchers from the University of Chicago and Yale New Haven Hospital report that 31 percent of physicians who were more religious—as measured by "intrinsic religiosity" as well as frequency of attendance at religious services—practiced among the underserved, compared to 35 percent of physicians who described their religion as atheist, agnostic or none.
"This came as both a surprise and a disappointment," study author Farr Curlin, MD, said. "The Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist scriptures all urge physicians to care for the poor, and the great majority of religious physicians describe their practice of medicine as a calling. Yet we found that religious physicians were not more likely to report practice among the underserved than their secular colleagues."
Physicians avoid spending the bulk of their time caring for the poor as it could mean forgoing professional prestige, free time and academic opportunities.
They found that even though they received reduced salaries, decreased support staff and faced constant bureaucratic interference, physicians who care for the underprivileged receive intangible rewards in exchange, such as a sense that they make a difference in society, have a positive impact on the lives of large groups of patients and have aligned their jobs with their altruistic aspirations.
Curlin and colleagues surveyed 1,820 practicing physicians from all specialties of whom 1,144 (63%) responded.
The survey contained questions about what the researchers called intrinsic religiosity—the extent to which individuals embrace their religion as the "master motive that guides and gives meaning to their life."
Researchers asked physicians if they agreed or disagreed with two statements: "I try hard to carry my religious beliefs over into all my other dealings in life," and "My whole approach to life is based on my religion." They were also asked how often they attended religious services.
The survey also included questions about whether the physicians considered medicine a calling, whether their religious beliefs influence their practice of medicine, and whether the family in which they were raised emphasized helping those with few resources.
Physicians who strongly agreed that their religious beliefs influence their practice of medicine were more likely to report practice among the under-served, but, physicians who were more religious in general, as measured by their intrinsic religiosity or their frequency of attending religious services, were not more likely to practice among the under-served.
Even the more religious physicians who reported that their families emphasized service to the poor and that, for them, the practice of medicine was a calling, were no more likely to practice among the poor.
Curlin and colleagues also noted that those who identified themselves as very spiritual, whether or not they were religious, were roughly twice as likely to care for the under-served as those who described their spirituality as low.
"Part of this divergence between religion and spirituality can be traced to a rift between Christian denominations in the late-19th and early-20th centuries," explained Curlin, who describes himself as an orthodox Christian in the Protestant tradition.
According to the author, about a hundred years ago many of the mainline and liberal Protestant churches began "to emphasize efforts to right social injustices, while the more conservative churches tended to stress doctrinal orthodoxy. Research indicates that those who consider themselves spiritual but not so religious are more likely to be formed in the more liberal denominations."
Policy makers and medical educators hoping to increase the physician supply for underserved populations should take these results into account cautiously, the authors recommended.
"No one knows how to select medical students in a way that would actually increase the number of physicians eager to serve the underserved," Curlin said, "but our findings suggest that admissions officials should ignore both the general religiousness of candidates and their professed sense of calling to medicine."
=======================================================================
Atheist doctors more likely to care for the poor than religious ones
Atheist doctors are likely to practice medicine among the underprivileged than religious physicians, even though most religions call on the faithful to serve the poor, according to the results of large cross-sectional survey of US medical practitioners published in Annals of Family Medicine.
Researchers from the University of Chicago and Yale New Haven Hospital report that 31 percent of physicians who were more religious—as measured by "intrinsic religiosity" as well as frequency of attendance at religious services—practiced among the underserved, compared to 35 percent of physicians who described their religion as atheist, agnostic or none.
"This came as both a surprise and a disappointment," study author Farr Curlin, MD, said. "The Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist scriptures all urge physicians to care for the poor, and the great majority of religious physicians describe their practice of medicine as a calling. Yet we found that religious physicians were not more likely to report practice among the underserved than their secular colleagues."
Physicians avoid spending the bulk of their time caring for the poor as it could mean forgoing professional prestige, free time and academic opportunities.
They found that even though they received reduced salaries, decreased support staff and faced constant bureaucratic interference, physicians who care for the underprivileged receive intangible rewards in exchange, such as a sense that they make a difference in society, have a positive impact on the lives of large groups of patients and have aligned their jobs with their altruistic aspirations.
Curlin and colleagues surveyed 1,820 practicing physicians from all specialties of whom 1,144 (63%) responded.
The survey contained questions about what the researchers called intrinsic religiosity—the extent to which individuals embrace their religion as the "master motive that guides and gives meaning to their life."
Researchers asked physicians if they agreed or disagreed with two statements: "I try hard to carry my religious beliefs over into all my other dealings in life," and "My whole approach to life is based on my religion." They were also asked how often they attended religious services.
The survey also included questions about whether the physicians considered medicine a calling, whether their religious beliefs influence their practice of medicine, and whether the family in which they were raised emphasized helping those with few resources.
Physicians who strongly agreed that their religious beliefs influence their practice of medicine were more likely to report practice among the under-served, but, physicians who were more religious in general, as measured by their intrinsic religiosity or their frequency of attending religious services, were not more likely to practice among the under-served.
Even the more religious physicians who reported that their families emphasized service to the poor and that, for them, the practice of medicine was a calling, were no more likely to practice among the poor.
Curlin and colleagues also noted that those who identified themselves as very spiritual, whether or not they were religious, were roughly twice as likely to care for the under-served as those who described their spirituality as low.
"Part of this divergence between religion and spirituality can be traced to a rift between Christian denominations in the late-19th and early-20th centuries," explained Curlin, who describes himself as an orthodox Christian in the Protestant tradition.
According to the author, about a hundred years ago many of the mainline and liberal Protestant churches began "to emphasize efforts to right social injustices, while the more conservative churches tended to stress doctrinal orthodoxy. Research indicates that those who consider themselves spiritual but not so religious are more likely to be formed in the more liberal denominations."
Policy makers and medical educators hoping to increase the physician supply for underserved populations should take these results into account cautiously, the authors recommended.
"No one knows how to select medical students in a way that would actually increase the number of physicians eager to serve the underserved," Curlin said, "but our findings suggest that admissions officials should ignore both the general religiousness of candidates and their professed sense of calling to medicine."
Monday, September 10, 2007
Feist -- Let It Die
This is a love song I liked a lot at the beginning of this year. It is performed by Feist, a Canadian singer-songwriter. When I heard this song, a story came into my head and when I get the time, I will write it out.
===========================================================================
Let it die and get out of my mind
We don't see eye to eye
Or hear ear to ear
Don't you wish that we could forget that kiss ?
And see this for what it is
That we're not in love
The saddest part of a broken heart
Isn't the ending so much as the start
It was hard to tell just how I felt
To not recognize myself
I started to fade away
And after all it won't take long to fall in love
Now I know what I don't want
I learned that with you
The saddest part of a broken heart
Isn't the ending so much as the start
The tragedy starts from the very first spark
Losing your mind for the sake of your heart
The saddest part of a broken heart
Isn't the ending so much as the start
===========================================================================
Let it die and get out of my mind
We don't see eye to eye
Or hear ear to ear
Don't you wish that we could forget that kiss ?
And see this for what it is
That we're not in love
The saddest part of a broken heart
Isn't the ending so much as the start
It was hard to tell just how I felt
To not recognize myself
I started to fade away
And after all it won't take long to fall in love
Now I know what I don't want
I learned that with you
The saddest part of a broken heart
Isn't the ending so much as the start
The tragedy starts from the very first spark
Losing your mind for the sake of your heart
The saddest part of a broken heart
Isn't the ending so much as the start
Sunday, September 09, 2007
陈升的访问
这是陈升在陶晶莹的节目上的访问。我非常喜欢陈升的歌，以及他歌里所提到的人生哲学。听他说话，你可以感觉的出来，他歌里所提到的所有东西都源于他的生活。这让我想到之前在某个高中对一群学生讲述有关小说创作的话：你有什么样的人生态度，就写出怎么样的小说。原来写歌和写小说都是一样的。
《第一部》
《第二部》
《第三部》
《第四部》
《第五部》
《第一部》
《第二部》
《第三部》
《第四部》
《第五部》
廉价也有代价
(刊登于联合早报2007年9月9日)
近几个月来，许多人对于 “中国制造” 这四个字感到些许不安，因为马上会联想到含有可能致癌成分的牙膏、含铅量过高的玩具、导致宠物丧命的宠物食品、不合格的人工饲养海产品等等，而美国药品监督管理局和其相关企业都相继对这些产品进行封杀。
当然，中国当局极力否认中国产品的品质有问题，并且强调部分产品有问题并不代表所有产品有问题。许多中国网民甚至揣测美国封杀中国产品其实只是在进行炒作 ，在经济贸易谈判上取得谈判的筹码。
且不论中国产品的品质是否有被炒作，倒是在同时期从中国传出来的一些相关新闻引起了我的关注。这些新闻包括了中国在山西和河南一带传出的黑砖窑剥削儿童和弱智人士的奴工事件，生产奥运纪念品的中国工厂面临滥用童工并严重侵犯工人权益的指责，以及近期发表有关中国生态环境因为制造工业的关系而受到了严重的伤害，而首当其冲的是生活在低下层人民的官方报告。
对于购买廉价的中国制造产品所必需付出的代价，或许一般消费者首先联想到的是品质不佳，或者是产品没经过严谨的安全测试，或者是对其食物感到有些战战兢兢，害怕里头参杂不该有的东西。当然，身为消费者，对这些问题担心也是无可厚非的。然而，我们常常都忽略了这些廉价山品背后的另一个代价的层面，也就是以上所提到的人工受到剥削和环境受到污染等问题。
与其说是忽略这些更深一层的代价，不如说是没有意识。由于多数消费者在接触产品时已经和产品制造的过程隔离，因此对于这些产品背后其他陌生人所付出的代价也不曾意识。即使意识，或许也不以为然。每当我在朋友面前提出以上论点时，所得到总是类似 “又不是我逼这些人的，是那些工厂” 或者 “对于这种情况，我也无法改变什么” 等回应，完全采取了一种事不关己的态度。
在全世界日渐趋向地球村的当儿，我常思考这种事不关己的态度是否还行得通。在地球暖化阴影的笼罩下，环境问题再也不是个地区性的问题了。其他国家所制造的温室气体并不会只停留于其国境里。尽管其他地方的劳工受到剥削或许不会影响到我们的生活，不过如果你知道自己所使用的产品是通过剥削其他人而制造的，你的良心会过得去吗？更何况， 所谓压低劳工的工资、降低产品的品质和在原料上偷工减料都源于增加盈利的思脉。或许那些剥削劳工的工厂就是那些会为了增加盈利而不假思索地使用有害人体的便宜原料的同一伙人。
当然，以上问题不仅存在于中国，也存在于其他国家， 尤其是南美洲和非洲国家，只不过是媒体近期都把注意力放在中国制造的产品上。与其说这是本人对于这些国家的批评，不如说这是对于生活在新加坡的我们身为消费者的反思。难道我们贪图消费的欲望也不是这整个恶性循环的重要一节吗？如果我们继续为了贪图廉价商品而无视于这些廉价商品背后的代价，以上所提到的问题绝对不可能解决。除非身为消费者的我们把商品制造过程中是否有伤害环境或者是剥削劳工纳入我们购买此商品的考虑因素当中，不然以上所提到的问题大概会一直持续下去吧。
Bill Maher's New Rules, 07 September 2007
There are a few funny hooks to religion... especially the one where he talks about the South Korean hostages in Afghanistan...
陳昇 -- 狗臉的歲月
陈升可算是我最喜欢的歌手。我从高中就开始听他的歌了。每当你认为你已经听懂他歌里的意思时，过了一段时间回来再听一次，总是会有不同的体验。这首《狗臉的歲月》是去年发的《这些人，那些人》里的一首歌，非常好听，也让我重新感觉到青春疯狂的感觉。
Saturday, September 08, 2007
Antony and the Johnsons -- Fistful of Love
This is a very beautiful song by Antony and the Johnsons from the album I am a Bird. This is a live performance for BBC Four Sessions in 2005. How I wished there was an equivalent of Antony of the Johnsons in the Chinese music scene. Unfortunately, given the state of Chinese music in Asia, I do not see a Chinese singer in this mold breaking into the mainstream music scene. This is really what music should be about: just the music and nothing else.
Friday, September 07, 2007
Antony and the Johnsons -- You Are My Sister
Another absolutely beautiful song from the album I am a Bird by Antony and the Johnsons. If you are somewhat confused by the lyrics or the video clip, the clue is Antony is singing about transgender women.
Thursday, September 06, 2007
Fox News Spoof
Fox News is the equivalent of what tabloids are to newspapers (think Lianhe Wanbao, The New Paper, Xin Ming Wanbao to established papers like Straits-Times... wait a minute...) in terms of news broadcasting. It is so biased towards conservative views and twist the facts so much that someone once commented: "You know what a comedy show on Fox News should be? REAL NEWS!!!"....
This is a spoof on Fox News which I find quite funny......
This is a spoof on Fox News which I find quite funny......
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
Rational Atheism
Found this article on Scientific American (here). While I disagree with point number 5 (and to a extent point number 4), I do think that there is some merit to points 1-3.
==========================================================================
An open letter to Messrs. Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens
By Michael Shermer
Since the turn of the millennium, a new militancy has arisen among religious skeptics in response to three threats to science and freedom: (1) attacks against evolution education and stem cell research; (2) breaks in the barrier separating church and state leading to political preferences for some faiths over others; and (3) fundamentalist terrorism here and abroad. Among many metrics available to track this skeptical movement is the ascension of four books to the august heights of the New York Times best-seller list—Sam Harris’s Letter to a Christian Nation (Knopf, 2006), Daniel Dennett’s Breaking the Spell (Viking, 2006), Christopher Hitchens’s God Is Not Great (Hachette Book Group, 2007) and Richard Dawkins’s The God Delusion (Houghton Mifflin, 2006)—that together, in Dawkins’s always poignant prose, “raise consciousness to the fact that to be an atheist is a realistic aspiration, and a brave and splendid one. You can be an atheist who is happy, balanced, moral and intellectually fulfilled.” Amen, brother.
Whenever religious beliefs conflict with scientific facts or violate principles of political liberty, we must respond with appropriate aplomb. Nevertheless, we should be cautious about irrational exuberance. I suggest that we raise our consciousness one tier higher for the following reasons.
1. Anti-something movements by themselves will fail. Atheists cannot simply define themselves by what they do not believe. As Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises warned his anti-Communist colleagues in the 1950s: “An anti-something movement displays a purely negative attitude. It has no chance whatever to succeed. Its passionate diatribes virtually advertise the program they attack. People must fight for something that they want to achieve, not simply reject an evil, however bad it may be.”
2. Positive assertions are necessary. Champion science and reason, as Charles Darwin suggested: “It appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against Christianity & theism produce hardly any effect on the public; & freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men’s minds which follow[s] from the advance of science. It has, therefore, been always my object to avoid writing on religion, & I have confined myself to science.”
3. Rational is as rational does. If it is our goal to raise people’s consciousness to the wonders of science and the power of reason, then we must apply science and reason to our own actions. It is irrational to take a hostile or condescending attitude toward religion because by doing so we virtually guarantee that religious people will respond in kind. As Carl Sagan cautioned in “The Burden of Skepticism,” a 1987 lecture, “You can get into a habit of thought in which you enjoy making fun of all those other people who don’t see things as clearly as you do. We have to guard carefully against it.”
4. The golden rule is symmetrical. In the words of the greatest consciousness raiser of the 20th century, Martin Luther King, Jr., in his epic “I Have a Dream” speech: “In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline.” If atheists do not want theists to prejudge them in a negative light, then they must not do unto theists the same.
5. Promote freedom of belief and disbelief. A higher moral principle that encompasses both science and religion is the freedom to think, believe and act as we choose, so long as our thoughts, beliefs and actions do not infringe on the equal freedom of others. As long as religion does not threaten science and freedom, we should be respectful and tolerant because our freedom to disbelieve is inextricably bound to the freedom of others to believe.
As King, in addition, noted: “The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. And they have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom.”
Rational atheism values the truths of science and the power of reason, but the principle of freedom stands above both science and religion.
Michael Shermer is publisher of Skeptic (www.skeptic.com). His latest book is Why Darwin Matters (Henry Holt, 2006).
==========================================================================
An open letter to Messrs. Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens
By Michael Shermer
Since the turn of the millennium, a new militancy has arisen among religious skeptics in response to three threats to science and freedom: (1) attacks against evolution education and stem cell research; (2) breaks in the barrier separating church and state leading to political preferences for some faiths over others; and (3) fundamentalist terrorism here and abroad. Among many metrics available to track this skeptical movement is the ascension of four books to the august heights of the New York Times best-seller list—Sam Harris’s Letter to a Christian Nation (Knopf, 2006), Daniel Dennett’s Breaking the Spell (Viking, 2006), Christopher Hitchens’s God Is Not Great (Hachette Book Group, 2007) and Richard Dawkins’s The God Delusion (Houghton Mifflin, 2006)—that together, in Dawkins’s always poignant prose, “raise consciousness to the fact that to be an atheist is a realistic aspiration, and a brave and splendid one. You can be an atheist who is happy, balanced, moral and intellectually fulfilled.” Amen, brother.
Whenever religious beliefs conflict with scientific facts or violate principles of political liberty, we must respond with appropriate aplomb. Nevertheless, we should be cautious about irrational exuberance. I suggest that we raise our consciousness one tier higher for the following reasons.
1. Anti-something movements by themselves will fail. Atheists cannot simply define themselves by what they do not believe. As Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises warned his anti-Communist colleagues in the 1950s: “An anti-something movement displays a purely negative attitude. It has no chance whatever to succeed. Its passionate diatribes virtually advertise the program they attack. People must fight for something that they want to achieve, not simply reject an evil, however bad it may be.”
2. Positive assertions are necessary. Champion science and reason, as Charles Darwin suggested: “It appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against Christianity & theism produce hardly any effect on the public; & freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men’s minds which follow[s] from the advance of science. It has, therefore, been always my object to avoid writing on religion, & I have confined myself to science.”
3. Rational is as rational does. If it is our goal to raise people’s consciousness to the wonders of science and the power of reason, then we must apply science and reason to our own actions. It is irrational to take a hostile or condescending attitude toward religion because by doing so we virtually guarantee that religious people will respond in kind. As Carl Sagan cautioned in “The Burden of Skepticism,” a 1987 lecture, “You can get into a habit of thought in which you enjoy making fun of all those other people who don’t see things as clearly as you do. We have to guard carefully against it.”
4. The golden rule is symmetrical. In the words of the greatest consciousness raiser of the 20th century, Martin Luther King, Jr., in his epic “I Have a Dream” speech: “In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline.” If atheists do not want theists to prejudge them in a negative light, then they must not do unto theists the same.
5. Promote freedom of belief and disbelief. A higher moral principle that encompasses both science and religion is the freedom to think, believe and act as we choose, so long as our thoughts, beliefs and actions do not infringe on the equal freedom of others. As long as religion does not threaten science and freedom, we should be respectful and tolerant because our freedom to disbelieve is inextricably bound to the freedom of others to believe.
As King, in addition, noted: “The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. And they have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom.”
Rational atheism values the truths of science and the power of reason, but the principle of freedom stands above both science and religion.
Michael Shermer is publisher of Skeptic (www.skeptic.com). His latest book is Why Darwin Matters (Henry Holt, 2006).
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
Bob Dylan --- Subterranean Homesick Blues
Bob Dylan's classic song Subterranean Homesick Blues has one of the most famous "stream-of-consciousness" lyrics. Well, this is not surprising if you considered the fact that Dylan was highly influenced by Beat Poetry.
Monday, September 03, 2007
Tony Benn Interview from Movie Sicko
I just watched Sicko. This is the part in the movie I liked best, when Tony Benn, ex-MP in Britain was talking about what democracy means. Also, he talks about universal medical health care and hints at the way we should think about our society. This is my favorite quote in the whole clip: "If you can find money to kill people, you can find money to help people".
Just think of all the money spent on "defense budget" by all the different countries, and compare that with the money that the government in every country spend to help the poorest in their society.
Damn, I am becoming a socialist... haha...
Just think of all the money spent on "defense budget" by all the different countries, and compare that with the money that the government in every country spend to help the poorest in their society.
Damn, I am becoming a socialist... haha...
张楚---姐姐
If there is one China singer whom I missed, then it is 张楚. He has been dubbed the most lonely singer in China, and shies away from the limelight. His songs, however, always touch a chord in my heart. This is 《姐姐》, a song from the compilation 《中国摇滚势力》 released over 12 years ago. I will try to upload other songs from his own albums, including my own personal favorite, 《上苍保佑吃饱了饭的人民》.
窦唯-- 噢 乖
Before he went electronica in 山河水, 窦唯 actually wrote some good indie music songs. This song was very popular amongst me and my friends when we were in high school.
Craig Ferguson Eulogizes His Father
Craig Ferguson is a TV host in United States. I think he is one of the funniest TV host here, and this is the episode where he eulogizes his father. It is one of the most honest and moving monologue about one's father, and although I am not the sappy sort, this video really touched me. Partly because it is half funny as well.
The Decemberists -- 16 Military Wives
This is a nice song by The Decemberists, whom I think are the closest thing to Neutral Milk Hotel (given that Jeff Magnum does not seem interested in reviving NMH)... This is an anti-war folk song, and it is appropriate given the whole context in which it was written in (i.e. Iraq War).....
Sunday, September 02, 2007
The Man Who Lived His Life As A Scandal
==========================================================================
“Man created God. The inverse remains to be proven.” --- Serge Gainsbourg
One of the drawbacks of being an ex-British colony is the cultural influence. Instead of the clearly superior Spanish or Italian soccer league, we are crazy over the English Premier League where passion is a poor substitute for lousy skills. Instead of cool European films, we have trashy Hollywood movies, mainly because of the language. No, we don’t drink red wine that is considered beneficial to health but instead subscribe to beer, which tastes like piss. And to top it all, we are told that the Beatles was the greatest band alive and few, if any, have heard of Serge Gainsbourg.
Gainsbourg to French music is just like what Steven Spielberg is to American movies multiplied by one million times, albeit a much controversial, provocative and lecherous version. His range of music is astonishingly wide, from jazz influenced songs in his early career to the bubblegum pop of the French Ye-Ye girls genre, from the heavily rock influenced style in the late 1960s to the reggae music in the 1970s, from the numerous movie soundtracks he wrote and produced throughout his career to rap music in the 1980s. Many influential artists nowadays, which includes Luna, Luscious Jackson, Yo La Tengo, Stereolab, Luna and Mick Harvey cite him as their influences.
Despite his wide variety of music, there is one common thread that runs through them, and that is the ability to create controversy. Perhaps the best-known and most cited example is the song “Je T'Aime...Moi Non Plus”, which he duet with his wife Jane Birkin. Even if you know nuts about French, the heavy breathing and sensual moans that accompany the vocals leaves little to imagination. When released in 1969 (fittingly), it created uproar all across Europe. The single was banned in Sweden, Spain, Brazil, and Britain. The Vatican condemned and implored the Italian government to banish it. Gainsbourg instantly became a cult figure in the European music scene.
Of course, this is not the only scandal in Gainsbourg career. “For me provocation is oxygen,” so said Gainsbourg once, and he lived true to his quote. He has affairs with countless women, with includes French sex icon Bridgett Bardot. He reconfigured the French national anthem “La Marseillaise” to a reggae beat, an act that drew protests from politicians and demonstrations by war veterans. During live TV interviews, he burnt a 500 francs note in front of national TV, and on another occasion, proclaimed to Whitney Houston, “I wanna f**k you.” In the 80s, he dressed up as a drag for Love On The Beat, an album that discusses homosexuality and incest. In 1985, he appeared on the music video for one of his songs “Lemon Incest” with his young daughter-Charlotte Gainsbourg-half naked in bed.
Gainsbourg died of a heart attack on March 2, 1991, and as a fitting tribute to the man who epitomise French music for the last half a century, the French government warranted a day of national mourning. “I’ve succeeded in everything but my life,” Gainsbourg once said depreciatingly of himself. However, if you ever heard his music, you would think how wrong he was to have said that.
Cat Power -- I've Found A Reason
This is an independently made music video of Cat Power's song, I've Found A Reason, which was a cover of Velvet Underground. Personally, I feel most cover songs suck in comparison with the original (well, there is a biasing effect here as well), but this is one of the few cover songs in which it is in fact better than the original.
US Beauty Queen Guffaw ... Similar to Presidential Guffaw
This is a clip from Bill Maher's New Rules... Oh my gosh, how dumb can people get???
Saturday, September 01, 2007
Serge Gainsbourg -- Je T'aime... Moi Non Plus
Found this absolute classic of a song on YouTube! Je T'aime... Moi Non Plus was released in the 60s and was one of the most controversial song of that time (read about it here). Serge Gainsbourg was always a controversial figure in French Music (I wrote an article about him years ago, will look for it and post it here soon), and as an atheist, I like this quote of his a lot: "Man created god. The inverse remains to be proven.
Article on Corporate Power
This is an interesting article (found here) about the effects of corporate power on ordinary citizens. I agree mostly with what the writers say, although they are doing it from an American perspective. However, look at the environment devastation in China now, and the fact that even though the "economy" is booming, the workers in China are still being paid peanuts compared to other workers. Think about the government's insistence not to revalue the RMB. Think about the horror stories you hear about forced slavery in factories. Yes, the China economy boom was successful, in that it made a selected few people more wealthy but most of the other people worse off. What an irony to the idea that China is one of the last Communist powers in the world.
====================================================================================
Who Will Rule? Citizens Movements Take On Corporate Power
by Michael Marx and Marjorie Kelly
Corporate power lies behind nearly every major problem we face-from stagnant wages and unaffordable health care to overconsumption and global warming. In some cases, it is the cause of the problem; in other cases, corporate power is a barrier to system-wide solutions. This dominance of corporate power is so pervasive, it has come to seem inevitable. We take it so much for granted, we fail to see it. Yet it is preventing solutions to some of the most pressing problems of our time.
With global warming a massive threat to our planet and a majority of U.S. citizens wanting action, why is the U.S. government so slow to address it? In large part because corporations use lobbying and campaign finance to constrain meaningful headway.
Why are jobs moving overseas, depressing wages at home, and leaving growing numbers under- or unemployed? In large part because trade treaties drafted in corporate-dominated back rooms have changed the rules of the global economy, allowing globalization to massively accelerate on corporation-friendly terms, at the expense of workers, communities, and the environment.
Why are unions declining and benefits disappearing? In large part because corporate power vastly overshadows the power of labor and governments, and corporations play one region off against another, busting unions to hold down labor costs while boosting profits, fueling a massive run-up in the stock market.
Why were electricity, the savings and loan industry, and other critical industries deregulated, contributing to major debacles whose costs are borne by the public? In large part because free market theory, enabled by campaign contributions and lobbying, seduced elected officials into trusting the marketplace to regulate itself.
With all this happening, why do we not read more about the pervasiveness of corporate power? In large part because even the “Fourth Estate,” our media establishment, is majority owned by a handful of mega-corporations.
Big corporations have become de facto governments, and the ethic that dominates corporations has come to dominate society. Maximizing profits, holding down wages, and externalizing costs onto the environment become the central dynamics for the entire economy and virtually the entire society.
What gets lost is the public good, the sense that life is about more than consumption, and the understanding that markets cannot manage all aspects of the social order.
What gets lost as well is the original purpose of corporations, which was to serve the public good.
A Movement for the Public Good
The solution is to bring corporations back under citizen control and in service to the public good. The main components of such a movement already exist-including organized labor, environmentalists, religious activists, shareholder activists, students, farmers, consumer advocates, health activists, and community-based organizations.We’ve seen the power of ordinary people working together on the streets of Seattle in 1999, challenging the World Trade Organization. We’ve seen them achieve impressive results curbing sweatshop abuses, limiting tobacco advertising, challenging predatory lending practices at home and abroad, and protecting millions of acres of forests, to name just a few successes.
We’ve also seen the growth of community-friendly economic designs like worker-owned enterprises, co-ops, and land trusts that, by design, put human and environmental well-being first.
Focus on Corporate Power
Each of these movements advocates for healthy communities, for a moral economy, and for the common good. If they acted together, they would possess enormous collective power. But as yet there is no whole, only disconnected parts. Despite many achievements, the gap in power between corporations and democratic forces has widened enormously in recent decades.
Activists and citizens are beginning to turn this around. We can build on this work. But if we are to close the gap in power, our strategies must evolve. We need to dream bigger, to speak with one voice across issue sectors, and to act more strategically. We need to focus less on symptoms of corporate abuse and more on the underlying cause-excessive corporate power. We must recognize that ultimately our struggle is for power. It is not just to make corporations more responsible, but to make them our servants, in much the same way that elected officials are public servants.
We need what the movement now lacks: a coherent vision of the role we want corporations to play in our society and a strategy for achieving that vision. It’s about putting We the People back in charge of our future, rather than the robotic behemoths that set their sights on short-term growth and high profits, regardless of the consequences.
The streams of many small movements must flow together into a single river, creating a global movement to bring corporations back under the control of citizens and their elected governments. The urgent need for unified action impelled a small group of organizations to initiate a long-term Strategic Corporate Initiative (SCI), of which we are a part.
A Way Forward
Over the past 18 months, the SCI team interviewed dozens of colleagues and progressive business executives to develop a coherent, long-term strategy to rein in corporations. Three major strategic tracks emerged:1. We need to restore democracy and rebuild countervailing forces that can control corporate power.
At the community level, this means elevating the rights of local municipalities over corporations. Communities should have the right to determine what companies will do business within their jurisdiction, and to establish requirements like living wage standards and environmental safeguards.
At the national level, restoring democracy means separating corporations and state. Corporations and the wealthy should no longer be allowed to dominate the electoral and legislative processes.
At the international level, the task is to create agreements and institutions that make social, environmental, and human rights an integral part of global economic rules.
2. We need to severely restrain the realms in which for-profit corporations operate.
Most extractive industries (fishing, oil, coal, mining, timber) take wealth from the ecological commons while paying only symbolic amounts to governments and leaving behind damaged ecosystems and depleted resources. The solution is to develop strong institutions that have ownership rights over common wealth. When commons are scarce or threatened, we need to limit use, assign property rights to trusts or public authorities, and charge market prices to users. With clear legal boundaries and management systems, the conflict over the commons shifts from a lopsided negotiation between powerful global corporations and an outgunned public sector, to a dispute resolved by deference to the common good.
3. We need to redesign the corporation itself, as well as the market system in which corporations operate.
Companies’ internal dynamics currently function like a furnace with a dial that can only be turned up. All the internal feedback loops say faster, higher, more short-term profits. And maximizing short-term profits leads to layoffs, fighting unions, demanding government subsidies, and escalating consumerist strains on the ecosystem.
To prevent overheating, the system needs consistent input from non-financial stakeholders, so that demands for profit can be balanced with the rights and needs of employees, the community, and the environment.
To end “short-termism,” company incentives-including executive pay-should be tied to measurements of how well the company serves the common good. Stock options that inflate executive pay should be outlawed or redesigned. Speculative short-term trading in stock should be taxed at significantly higher rates than long-term investments. Companies should be rated on their labor, environmental, and community records, with governments using their financial power-through taxes, purchasing, investing, and subsidies-to reward the good guys and stigmatize the bad guys.
At the same time, we need to celebrate and encourage alternative corporate designs, such as for-benefit corporations, community-owned cooperatives, trusts, and employee-owned companies.
The paths outlined here do not represent impossibilities. With a citizens’ movement, we could turn these musings into reality in 20 years.
Building a Global Citizens’ Movement
How can we change laws regulating corporate behavior when corporations dominate the political process? The answer is that change begins with the people, not their government. It always has. Civil society organizations and communities can align their interests to produce a wave that government leaders must either surf upon or drown within.The people control the vital issue of legitimacy, and no system can long stand that loses its legitimacy, as fallen despots of the 20th century have demonstrated. Corporations have already lost much of their moral legitimacy. Business Week in 2002 found that more than four out of five people believed corporations were too powerful. A national poll by Lake, Snell, Perry, and Mermin two years ago concluded that over three-quarters of Americans distrust CEOs and blame them for the loss of jobs. An international poll by Globe Scan recently found corporations far behind NGOs in public trust.
Trigger events lie ahead that will create further openings for change. We can expect to see new global warming catastrophes, unaffordable energy price spikes, and new corporate scandals. We can capitalize on these openings if we can help people connect the dots-making the link, for example, between excessive CEO pay, companies’ short-term focus, and the inability of the private sector to manage long-term problems like the energy crisis and global warming.
We also need conceptual frames that link various movements together into a common effort. Currently our economy is dominated by a Market Fundamentalism frame, based on the belief that when self-interest is set free, Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” will create prosperity for all. Also dominant is the Private Property frame, which justifies actions by executives and shareholders to exploit workers, communities, and the environment in order to maximize the value of stockholder and executive “property” in share ownership.
We can advance new frames. “Moral Economy,” for example, is a frame that puts the firing of thousands of employees and simultaneous awarding of multimillion-dollar bonuses to executives in a moral context. Suggested by Fred Block of the Longview Institute, the Moral Economy frame invites the introduction of new system forces into market dynamics in order to protect the moral order, and to counteract the amoral, short-term, self-interested behavior promoted by Market Fundamentalism.
Within the overarching framework of a Moral Economy, other frameworks like Community and the Commons challenge the supremacy of individualism and self-interest in the Market Fundamentalism frame. Community well-being becomes the standard by which business practices are judged, and communities themselves the arbiters of whether standards are met. The Commons represents our shared property and wealth, which is not to be exploited for the selfish benefit of the few.
New conceptual frames, trigger events, a crisis of legitimacy-elements like these can serve to help build a citizens’ movement. But we cannot simply wait for this movement to form spontaneously. At the international level, we need regional organizations to come together to agree on overarching priorities. At the national level, we likewise need discussions that forge strategic priorities. At the community level, we need to create a network of municipalities working together to challenge corporate rights, to promote alternative business forms, and to inventory and claim our common wealth assets. Communities can also take the lead in creating public financing of campaigns, and in tying procurement and investment policies to corporate social ratings.
The idea is not that people will drop their issues and adopt new ones, but that we can learn to do both at once. We can knit ourselves into a single movement by adopting common frames and by integrating strategic common priorities into existing campaigns. For example, campaigns covering any issues from the environment to living wages could demand that targeted companies end all involvement in political campaigns.
As individuals, we can relegate our identities as consumers and investors to secondary status, elevating to first place our identities as citizens and members of families and communities, people with a stewardship responsibility for the natural world and with moral obligations to one another. We can stop buying the story that government is inefficient and wasteful, grasping that the real issue is how corporations and money dominate government. We can stop thinking that the solution is more Democrats in power, and realize it is more democracy.
The transformative changes we need will not be on any party’s agenda until a citizens’ movement puts them there. It’s up to us to build that movement. By joining together-by taking on the common structural impediments that block progress-we can make it possible for all of us to achieve the variety of goals we’re currently struggling for.
How would reducing the underlying power of corporations affect today’s issue campaigns? Ending corporate campaign contributions and political advertising would benefit a great many public interest causes. How often in recent years have initiatives to protect forests, increase recycling, provide healthcare coverage, and raise minimum wages been defeated by corporations who outspent their civil society opponents by a ratio of over 30 to one? We’ve all witnessed elected leaders move to the political center once they started receiving a steady flow of corporate contributions.
Likewise, if we could reduce the 13,000 registered corporate lobbyists in Washington, D.C. and end the revolving door between government regulators and corporations, would a handful of companies be allowed to own the lion’s share of our media? Would savings and loan, energy, transportation, and tobacco companies still have been de- or unregulated? Would oil and coal companies still drive our national energy policy?
Imagine …
Imagine what it might be like in 20 years if our efforts are successful and people could once again govern themselves. A line would be carefully drawn between corporations and the state, reducing financial influence over elections and lawmaking, making possible a whole new generation of progressive elected officials committed to social transformation.In 20 years, imagine that the institutions of the global economy are overhauled so that labor and environmental issues are integrated into trade policies, and impoverished nations are freed from unpayable international debts. Trade and investment rules promote fair exchange, and national governments have the policy space to support social and environmental goals at home. Transnational corporations that take destructive action are held accountable in a World Court for Corporate Crimes.
In 20 years, imagine community self-governance has become the new norm. No longer can companies open new stores in communities where they are unwanted, or play communities off one another to extract illegitimate public subsidies. We value and protect our precious common wealth, from ecological commons like air, water, fisheries, and seeds, to cultural commons like music and science.
In 20 years, imagine that it is a violation of fiduciary responsibility for corporations to pay CEOs obscene amounts, or to aggressively fight unions and lobby against environmental safeguards. Responsible companies protect the environment as though there is a tomorrow, and they view worker knowledge and company’s reputation in the communities where they operate as their greatest assets. Imagine such companies receive preferential treatment in government purchasing, taxation and investment policies, while irresponsible companies find themselves barred from government contracts.
Imagine we have a new national policy to make employee ownership as widespread as home ownership is today. And alternative company designs-like cooperatives and new, for-benefit companies-grow and flourish.
Imagine, in other words, that We the People are able to reclaim our economy and society from corporate control. Daring to dream that such a turn of events is possible-and charting the path to get there-is a critical challenge of our new century.
Michael Marx is director of Corporate Ethics International (CEI) in Portland, Oregon. Marjorie Kelly is with the Tellus Institute in Boston and the author of The Divine Right of Capital. They are part of the Strategic Corporate Initiative, a group unifying efforts to curtail corporate power, and igniting change toward a more humane, sustainable democratic society and economy.
Read more about the SCI and read their full report: “Strategic Corporate Initiative: Toward a Global Citizens’ Movement to Bring Corporations Back Under Control.”
====================================================================================
Who Will Rule? Citizens Movements Take On Corporate Power
by Michael Marx and Marjorie Kelly
Corporate power lies behind nearly every major problem we face-from stagnant wages and unaffordable health care to overconsumption and global warming. In some cases, it is the cause of the problem; in other cases, corporate power is a barrier to system-wide solutions. This dominance of corporate power is so pervasive, it has come to seem inevitable. We take it so much for granted, we fail to see it. Yet it is preventing solutions to some of the most pressing problems of our time.
With global warming a massive threat to our planet and a majority of U.S. citizens wanting action, why is the U.S. government so slow to address it? In large part because corporations use lobbying and campaign finance to constrain meaningful headway.
Why are jobs moving overseas, depressing wages at home, and leaving growing numbers under- or unemployed? In large part because trade treaties drafted in corporate-dominated back rooms have changed the rules of the global economy, allowing globalization to massively accelerate on corporation-friendly terms, at the expense of workers, communities, and the environment.
Why are unions declining and benefits disappearing? In large part because corporate power vastly overshadows the power of labor and governments, and corporations play one region off against another, busting unions to hold down labor costs while boosting profits, fueling a massive run-up in the stock market.
Why were electricity, the savings and loan industry, and other critical industries deregulated, contributing to major debacles whose costs are borne by the public? In large part because free market theory, enabled by campaign contributions and lobbying, seduced elected officials into trusting the marketplace to regulate itself.
With all this happening, why do we not read more about the pervasiveness of corporate power? In large part because even the “Fourth Estate,” our media establishment, is majority owned by a handful of mega-corporations.
Big corporations have become de facto governments, and the ethic that dominates corporations has come to dominate society. Maximizing profits, holding down wages, and externalizing costs onto the environment become the central dynamics for the entire economy and virtually the entire society.
What gets lost is the public good, the sense that life is about more than consumption, and the understanding that markets cannot manage all aspects of the social order.
What gets lost as well is the original purpose of corporations, which was to serve the public good.
A Movement for the Public Good
The solution is to bring corporations back under citizen control and in service to the public good. The main components of such a movement already exist-including organized labor, environmentalists, religious activists, shareholder activists, students, farmers, consumer advocates, health activists, and community-based organizations.We’ve seen the power of ordinary people working together on the streets of Seattle in 1999, challenging the World Trade Organization. We’ve seen them achieve impressive results curbing sweatshop abuses, limiting tobacco advertising, challenging predatory lending practices at home and abroad, and protecting millions of acres of forests, to name just a few successes.
We’ve also seen the growth of community-friendly economic designs like worker-owned enterprises, co-ops, and land trusts that, by design, put human and environmental well-being first.
Focus on Corporate Power
Each of these movements advocates for healthy communities, for a moral economy, and for the common good. If they acted together, they would possess enormous collective power. But as yet there is no whole, only disconnected parts. Despite many achievements, the gap in power between corporations and democratic forces has widened enormously in recent decades.
Activists and citizens are beginning to turn this around. We can build on this work. But if we are to close the gap in power, our strategies must evolve. We need to dream bigger, to speak with one voice across issue sectors, and to act more strategically. We need to focus less on symptoms of corporate abuse and more on the underlying cause-excessive corporate power. We must recognize that ultimately our struggle is for power. It is not just to make corporations more responsible, but to make them our servants, in much the same way that elected officials are public servants.
We need what the movement now lacks: a coherent vision of the role we want corporations to play in our society and a strategy for achieving that vision. It’s about putting We the People back in charge of our future, rather than the robotic behemoths that set their sights on short-term growth and high profits, regardless of the consequences.
The streams of many small movements must flow together into a single river, creating a global movement to bring corporations back under the control of citizens and their elected governments. The urgent need for unified action impelled a small group of organizations to initiate a long-term Strategic Corporate Initiative (SCI), of which we are a part.
A Way Forward
Over the past 18 months, the SCI team interviewed dozens of colleagues and progressive business executives to develop a coherent, long-term strategy to rein in corporations. Three major strategic tracks emerged:1. We need to restore democracy and rebuild countervailing forces that can control corporate power.
At the community level, this means elevating the rights of local municipalities over corporations. Communities should have the right to determine what companies will do business within their jurisdiction, and to establish requirements like living wage standards and environmental safeguards.
At the national level, restoring democracy means separating corporations and state. Corporations and the wealthy should no longer be allowed to dominate the electoral and legislative processes.
At the international level, the task is to create agreements and institutions that make social, environmental, and human rights an integral part of global economic rules.
2. We need to severely restrain the realms in which for-profit corporations operate.
Most extractive industries (fishing, oil, coal, mining, timber) take wealth from the ecological commons while paying only symbolic amounts to governments and leaving behind damaged ecosystems and depleted resources. The solution is to develop strong institutions that have ownership rights over common wealth. When commons are scarce or threatened, we need to limit use, assign property rights to trusts or public authorities, and charge market prices to users. With clear legal boundaries and management systems, the conflict over the commons shifts from a lopsided negotiation between powerful global corporations and an outgunned public sector, to a dispute resolved by deference to the common good.
3. We need to redesign the corporation itself, as well as the market system in which corporations operate.
Companies’ internal dynamics currently function like a furnace with a dial that can only be turned up. All the internal feedback loops say faster, higher, more short-term profits. And maximizing short-term profits leads to layoffs, fighting unions, demanding government subsidies, and escalating consumerist strains on the ecosystem.
To prevent overheating, the system needs consistent input from non-financial stakeholders, so that demands for profit can be balanced with the rights and needs of employees, the community, and the environment.
To end “short-termism,” company incentives-including executive pay-should be tied to measurements of how well the company serves the common good. Stock options that inflate executive pay should be outlawed or redesigned. Speculative short-term trading in stock should be taxed at significantly higher rates than long-term investments. Companies should be rated on their labor, environmental, and community records, with governments using their financial power-through taxes, purchasing, investing, and subsidies-to reward the good guys and stigmatize the bad guys.
At the same time, we need to celebrate and encourage alternative corporate designs, such as for-benefit corporations, community-owned cooperatives, trusts, and employee-owned companies.
The paths outlined here do not represent impossibilities. With a citizens’ movement, we could turn these musings into reality in 20 years.
Building a Global Citizens’ Movement
How can we change laws regulating corporate behavior when corporations dominate the political process? The answer is that change begins with the people, not their government. It always has. Civil society organizations and communities can align their interests to produce a wave that government leaders must either surf upon or drown within.The people control the vital issue of legitimacy, and no system can long stand that loses its legitimacy, as fallen despots of the 20th century have demonstrated. Corporations have already lost much of their moral legitimacy. Business Week in 2002 found that more than four out of five people believed corporations were too powerful. A national poll by Lake, Snell, Perry, and Mermin two years ago concluded that over three-quarters of Americans distrust CEOs and blame them for the loss of jobs. An international poll by Globe Scan recently found corporations far behind NGOs in public trust.
Trigger events lie ahead that will create further openings for change. We can expect to see new global warming catastrophes, unaffordable energy price spikes, and new corporate scandals. We can capitalize on these openings if we can help people connect the dots-making the link, for example, between excessive CEO pay, companies’ short-term focus, and the inability of the private sector to manage long-term problems like the energy crisis and global warming.
We also need conceptual frames that link various movements together into a common effort. Currently our economy is dominated by a Market Fundamentalism frame, based on the belief that when self-interest is set free, Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” will create prosperity for all. Also dominant is the Private Property frame, which justifies actions by executives and shareholders to exploit workers, communities, and the environment in order to maximize the value of stockholder and executive “property” in share ownership.
We can advance new frames. “Moral Economy,” for example, is a frame that puts the firing of thousands of employees and simultaneous awarding of multimillion-dollar bonuses to executives in a moral context. Suggested by Fred Block of the Longview Institute, the Moral Economy frame invites the introduction of new system forces into market dynamics in order to protect the moral order, and to counteract the amoral, short-term, self-interested behavior promoted by Market Fundamentalism.
Within the overarching framework of a Moral Economy, other frameworks like Community and the Commons challenge the supremacy of individualism and self-interest in the Market Fundamentalism frame. Community well-being becomes the standard by which business practices are judged, and communities themselves the arbiters of whether standards are met. The Commons represents our shared property and wealth, which is not to be exploited for the selfish benefit of the few.
New conceptual frames, trigger events, a crisis of legitimacy-elements like these can serve to help build a citizens’ movement. But we cannot simply wait for this movement to form spontaneously. At the international level, we need regional organizations to come together to agree on overarching priorities. At the national level, we likewise need discussions that forge strategic priorities. At the community level, we need to create a network of municipalities working together to challenge corporate rights, to promote alternative business forms, and to inventory and claim our common wealth assets. Communities can also take the lead in creating public financing of campaigns, and in tying procurement and investment policies to corporate social ratings.
The idea is not that people will drop their issues and adopt new ones, but that we can learn to do both at once. We can knit ourselves into a single movement by adopting common frames and by integrating strategic common priorities into existing campaigns. For example, campaigns covering any issues from the environment to living wages could demand that targeted companies end all involvement in political campaigns.
As individuals, we can relegate our identities as consumers and investors to secondary status, elevating to first place our identities as citizens and members of families and communities, people with a stewardship responsibility for the natural world and with moral obligations to one another. We can stop buying the story that government is inefficient and wasteful, grasping that the real issue is how corporations and money dominate government. We can stop thinking that the solution is more Democrats in power, and realize it is more democracy.
The transformative changes we need will not be on any party’s agenda until a citizens’ movement puts them there. It’s up to us to build that movement. By joining together-by taking on the common structural impediments that block progress-we can make it possible for all of us to achieve the variety of goals we’re currently struggling for.
How would reducing the underlying power of corporations affect today’s issue campaigns? Ending corporate campaign contributions and political advertising would benefit a great many public interest causes. How often in recent years have initiatives to protect forests, increase recycling, provide healthcare coverage, and raise minimum wages been defeated by corporations who outspent their civil society opponents by a ratio of over 30 to one? We’ve all witnessed elected leaders move to the political center once they started receiving a steady flow of corporate contributions.
Likewise, if we could reduce the 13,000 registered corporate lobbyists in Washington, D.C. and end the revolving door between government regulators and corporations, would a handful of companies be allowed to own the lion’s share of our media? Would savings and loan, energy, transportation, and tobacco companies still have been de- or unregulated? Would oil and coal companies still drive our national energy policy?
Imagine …
Imagine what it might be like in 20 years if our efforts are successful and people could once again govern themselves. A line would be carefully drawn between corporations and the state, reducing financial influence over elections and lawmaking, making possible a whole new generation of progressive elected officials committed to social transformation.In 20 years, imagine that the institutions of the global economy are overhauled so that labor and environmental issues are integrated into trade policies, and impoverished nations are freed from unpayable international debts. Trade and investment rules promote fair exchange, and national governments have the policy space to support social and environmental goals at home. Transnational corporations that take destructive action are held accountable in a World Court for Corporate Crimes.
In 20 years, imagine community self-governance has become the new norm. No longer can companies open new stores in communities where they are unwanted, or play communities off one another to extract illegitimate public subsidies. We value and protect our precious common wealth, from ecological commons like air, water, fisheries, and seeds, to cultural commons like music and science.
In 20 years, imagine that it is a violation of fiduciary responsibility for corporations to pay CEOs obscene amounts, or to aggressively fight unions and lobby against environmental safeguards. Responsible companies protect the environment as though there is a tomorrow, and they view worker knowledge and company’s reputation in the communities where they operate as their greatest assets. Imagine such companies receive preferential treatment in government purchasing, taxation and investment policies, while irresponsible companies find themselves barred from government contracts.
Imagine we have a new national policy to make employee ownership as widespread as home ownership is today. And alternative company designs-like cooperatives and new, for-benefit companies-grow and flourish.
Imagine, in other words, that We the People are able to reclaim our economy and society from corporate control. Daring to dream that such a turn of events is possible-and charting the path to get there-is a critical challenge of our new century.
Michael Marx is director of Corporate Ethics International (CEI) in Portland, Oregon. Marjorie Kelly is with the Tellus Institute in Boston and the author of The Divine Right of Capital. They are part of the Strategic Corporate Initiative, a group unifying efforts to curtail corporate power, and igniting change toward a more humane, sustainable democratic society and economy.
Read more about the SCI and read their full report: “Strategic Corporate Initiative: Toward a Global Citizens’ Movement to Bring Corporations Back Under Control.”
Chewing Gum -- Annie
Annie is a Norwegian pop artist who reminds me of an early Madonna or Kylie Minogue... This is a song from her album, Anniemal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
