I tend to think overconcentration of power is bad whether in the hands of an individual, an organization or the government. This is different from libertarians who tend to think it's only bad when in the hands of the government.
Monopolies are generally bad for consumers. It doesn't really matter whether it's a state-run monopoly or a private monopoly, the effects are the same. I was thinking about this today on my bike to work. Mainly in how it relates to the decline of the music industry in recent years. I was inspired in this by a recent PBS documentary on the decline and fall of the music industry.
I don't listen to music in the morning when I'm getting ready for work. Mainly because radio stations don't really play music in the morning. They are filled with babble and gabbing that, in a crime against humanity, is marketed as humor. 3rd graders joking about bodily functions is more amusing than most of this stuff.
You'd think one of the radio stations would play just music because they would automatically become the destination of choice of radio listeners who like to listen to... music. Market forces suggest that someone should step up to fill this niche, but it doesn't happen. At least not around here.
Clear Channel dominates the commercial radio industry. It's not a technical monopoly, since there are other players. But much like DeBeers in the diamond industry, Clear Channel has such overwhelming influence that it's a de facto monopoly. If you want to be a player, you have to conform to Clear Channel's fiats.
This essay is not to bash Clear Channel. Just about any corporation would become a de facto monopoly if they could. It's the instincts of most business to get as much market share as possible. And it's not to bash the Republicans either. The GOP Congress passed the liberalization bill that made this domination possible, but it was Democrat Bill Clinton who signed it into law. Indeed, it was bipartsian complicity. Rather, this essay is just to note the consequences of Clear Channel's domination.
Monopolies, actual or de facto, are generally bad for consumers. They become flabby and complacent, because there's no punishment if they do, in contrast to competitive industries. The natural instinct of a big corporation is conservatism, to not take risks. Taking risks means upsetting the status quo. If you have a de facto monopoly, the status quo is good. They also tend to be more concerned about price, so quality suffers. This is because American consumers are generally more concerned about price than quality so they're giving the consumers what most of them want. Not what they say they want, but what they prove they want via their actions.
By all accounts, Microsoft Windows is far from the best operating system out there. Yet, through genius marketing, MS Windows has near monopoly on operating systems. This is to Microsoft's credit. If you have an inferior product, you need to compensate somewhere else and MS did a great job.
The telecommunications industry exploded in innovation and prices came way down after Ma Bell was broken up in the early 80s. First, Sprint and MCI evolved as rivals to AT&T and now we have a million cell phone companies. Long-distance calls are much cheaper than they were before.
Clear Chanel's effective monopoly over radio stations is bad for consumers. I remember one Sunday evening flipping through my pre-sets. I have 8 pre-sets and 3 of the stations were playing the exact same song and were at the exact same point in that song. The de facto monopoly means there is little opportunity for new music to get on the airwaves. Not no opportunity, but little opportunity.
Because Clear Channel has been so aggressive in buying up the airwaves, the price of frequencies has gone through the roof, thus making competition that much harder. That's exactly the same strategy DeBeer's uses to control the diamond industry. When I was in Guinea, I got to know a few DeBeers' employees. One of them was telling me that they buy just about any diamond that's brought to them, even if it's not of good quality, merely to preserve the illusion of the rarity of diamonds, which is the main part of the gem's appeal. They were quite open about the strategy.
Clear Channel is as aggressive as DeBeers in preserving its market share. It's good for them and I don't blame them. But I'm not under the illusion that I, as a consumer, benefit in any way.
Clear Channel's domination of the airwaves has led to mass mediocrity in radio. I'm not upset about this, just a bit sad. I really don't listen much to radio anymore because of this. I rarely buy new release CDs. New acts get so little exposure and most of those few that do aren't so much aritsts as pretty boys or skanks or one-hit wonders. The miniscule number of real artists that get through as so drowned out that I, like most people, don't waste my time any more sifting through the garbage just for the increasingly rare gem.
If I do buy a CD, it's usually of an older artist. I think about 15% of my CDs are of current acts and Dave Matthews, U2 and Counting Crows are the only ones of those I have more than one of. Most of my stuff is older stuff. Beatles, Zeppelin, Genesis...
This mass mediocrity is the biggest reason why file sharing has exploded in popularity. Who wants to throw away $15 bucks on a CD with one or two decent songs? The RIAA can lecture on morality and legality all they want and they might be technically right, but it's a pyhrric argumentative victory. I personally prefer the CD format. I don't know how many great songs I've discovered because I was listening to a CD I bought for another song(s).
CDs give you a broader portrait of the artist. But if that broader portrait is revealed to be empty and worthless, people are going to realize the shell game. And they have. The increasing emphasis on the hit song means the rest of the album suffers. As the rest of the album suffers, consumers stop getting value for the money and eventually get pissed off and stop shelling out their money on the crap.
I, the consumer, am ill-served by this de facto monopoly. I'm not proposing any solutions, since there really isn't any practical solution. The horse is out of the barn. I'm just a consumer bemoaning my paucity of choice. This monopoly status has bred so complacency and conformity that it's not going to change. And I'll continue to not buy CDs or listen to the radio.
Monday, June 07, 2004
Saturday, June 05, 2004
D-Day remembrances as seen in other countries and ours
In honor of the 60th anniversary of D-Day (tommorrow), I thought it would be useful to offer a selection of related pieces from broadcasters around the world. It's interesting to hear how media in various countries are remembering the events in Normandy.
Click on a link to go to the page where you can listen to the story. Some link to a single story, others to a page with a series of documentaries.
-Radio France -- Les Veillées du 60e anniversaire (in French).
-BBC Radio 4, Britain -- Radio 4 commemorates D-Day.
-CBC, Canada -- D-Day: Canada's role.
-RTE Radio One, Rep. of Ireland -- D Day 60 Years On - The Forgotten Heroes.
-RBTF, Belgium -- Commémorations du 6 juin (in French)
-NPR, USA -- Cronkite: Eisenhower's Return to Normandy.
-Deutsche Welle, Germany -- Remembering D-Day.
Also a few non-audio pieces:
-CBC -- Prince [Charles] honours Canadian war dead.
-Christian Science Monitor, USA -- D-Day foes forge new friendship.
-Le Monde, France -- Mémoire de Canadiens (in French)
-Le Monde -- La lente naissance du Jour J.
Click on a link to go to the page where you can listen to the story. Some link to a single story, others to a page with a series of documentaries.
-Radio France -- Les Veillées du 60e anniversaire (in French).
-BBC Radio 4, Britain -- Radio 4 commemorates D-Day.
-CBC, Canada -- D-Day: Canada's role.
-RTE Radio One, Rep. of Ireland -- D Day 60 Years On - The Forgotten Heroes.
-RBTF, Belgium -- Commémorations du 6 juin (in French)
-NPR, USA -- Cronkite: Eisenhower's Return to Normandy.
-Deutsche Welle, Germany -- Remembering D-Day.
Also a few non-audio pieces:
-CBC -- Prince [Charles] honours Canadian war dead.
-Christian Science Monitor, USA -- D-Day foes forge new friendship.
-Le Monde, France -- Mémoire de Canadiens (in French)
-Le Monde -- La lente naissance du Jour J.
Thursday, June 03, 2004
If it's good enough for the Constitution...
Everyone's all hyper that some people want to remove the words ' under God' from the Pledge of Allegiance. It seems logical enough to me. I mean, the original version of the Pledge of Allegiance didn't contain the phrase. In fact, the Pledge was around without 'God' for longer than it's included 'God.' The pledge was "without God" for over half a century and the sky never fell on our dear Republic.
But some people insist that by not having God, the Pledge would be denying the existence of God.
Out of curiousity, I did a search of the US Constitution (articles and amendments) for the word 'God.'
The result: no findings.
To the best of my research: there is no God in the Constitution.
If the Republic has survived for over two centuries without God in the Constitution, then removing from the Pledge is not going to be the end of the world.
Or maybe James Madison was just a godless Commie...
But some people insist that by not having God, the Pledge would be denying the existence of God.
Out of curiousity, I did a search of the US Constitution (articles and amendments) for the word 'God.'
The result: no findings.
To the best of my research: there is no God in the Constitution.
If the Republic has survived for over two centuries without God in the Constitution, then removing from the Pledge is not going to be the end of the world.
Or maybe James Madison was just a godless Commie...
Judicial activism
The judiciary has been in the firing line of the American right for so-called judicial activism since the 1960s. It stands accused of "inventing" rights and of being an unelected branching supposedly usurping the power of the people's elected Congressmen. Though the judiciary was also criticized in the 1930s not sufficiently blocking FDR's New Deal programs. In other words, for not being "activist" enough.
Now it's increasingly in the crosshairs of the left, who accuse the judiciary of partisan politicking (Bush v. Gore) and of plotting to roll back previous court cases like Miranda v. Arizona and Roe v. Wade.
The US government has three branches:
the Congress (elected by the people)
the President (elected by electors who are chosen by state legislators) and the rest of the executive
the courts (nominated by president, confirmed by one branch of Congress)
The courts are the branch of government least accountable to the people, because they are nominated by a not-popularly-elected president (before I get a ton of spiteful responses, no American president is popularly elected). Judges can be confirmed with the support of less than 10% of those elected by the people to Congress.
The federal judiciary was designed this way by America's Founding Fathers (who some are quick to canonize) so as to innoculate judges from the political hysteria of the day. In other words, they weren't supposed to make decisions just because the majority of the people wanted a particular outcome.
[For the purposes of this essay, judges, the judiciary and the Constitution are all the federal versions unless otherwise noted]
THE DEFINED ROLE OF THE COURTS
Congress passes laws. The executive enforces laws (in theory). And the courts intrepret laws. That's the separation of powers.
In the case Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court asserted its prerogative of judicial review. That's to say, its power to determine if a piece of legislation conforms with the US Constitution.
This seems straightward enough. After all, the Constitution's Article III, Section 2, in defining the courts' role, begins: The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority.
So if the courts have the power to interpret the Constitution, why do they get a bum rap when they do exactly that?
The answer is that there are different schools of thought as to how judges (and the rest of us) should interpret the Constitution.
STRICT INTERPRETATION
Some believe in a strict, literal intrepretation of the Constitution. That's to say: the Constitution means exactly what it says. And only what it says. This is problematic since certain sections of the Constitution are intentionally vague. (And because the sheer quantity of subordinate clauses, qualifications, commas and semicolons)
For example, the 9th Amendment reads The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
This amendment was included because James Madison was concerned precisely about a strictly literal interpretation of the Bill of Rights. Madison was afraid that by specifically enumerating the rights contained in the first eight amendments, certain people would conclude that other rights, that had been assumed for generations, would suddenly disappear just because they weren't explicitly mentioned.
So the 9th Amendment basically says: any rights that have been long established are still around even though we don't mention it here. This is why nearly everyone accepts the right to privacy as one of our most fundamental rights.
However, a strict interpretation says that since the Constitution doesn't explicitly mention the right to privacy, it doesn't exist; would-be Supreme Court justice Robert Bork is a subscriber to this belief. Fortunately, most people realize that the right to privacy must exist because it is the foundation of almost all of the amendments contained in the Bill of Rights.
ORIGINAL INTENT
Another common school of thought is called original intent. This is a very straight-forward theory. Whatever the framers of the Constitution intended by a particular clause or amendment is what we must respect. This is a seducing approach. It's got the advantage of being simple and unchanging. The downside is that it's simple and it's unchanging.
This approach is based on the premise that whatever a bunch of guys thought was a good idea in 1787 must bind us until the end of time. They were, as a group, white, male, property owners who wanted to protect the system for all white, male property owners. This was actually a fairly enlightened approach for the world of the late 18th century. I respect them for what they believed when they believed it. But to suggest that we import wholesale and verbatim their ideas AND INTENT into the 21st century is idiotic.
The Declaration of Independence states that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
The Founding Fathers believed in this. Except when they said men, they meant MEN, not women. And as any male slave could tell you, they sure didn't mean all men.
Another example, the 5th Amendment begins: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury...
This is another place where the Founding Fathers' INTENT of the word 'person' doesn't correspond with the common 21st century understanding of the word. Black men weren't considered by the Founding Fathers to be whole people, as the 3/5 Compromise proved. And women were nothing at all.
Some of the Founding Fathers, such as John Jay (the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court), wanted to deny Catholics the right to vote. Should we follow his intent?
Basically, according to Original Intent, constitutional rights should only apply to white, male, property owners. And perhaps only to non-Catholic white, male, property owners.
HOMOGENEOUS FOUNDERS?
And I'm not even convinced that it's even that simple to figure out what the Founding Fathers intended in all cases. They were hardly the homogenuous thinking group that popular myth suggests. They had serious, often bitter, disagreements.
The 1st Amendment (ratified in 1791) states: Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.
Yet in 1798, Congress passed the Sedition Act. The Sedition Act mandate a fine and imprisonment for any persons [who] shall unlawfully combine or conspire together, with intent to oppose any measure or measures of the government of the United States... as well as for any person shall write, print, utter. Or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered or published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States.
The deliciously vague Sedition Act was signed into law by John Adams. But since John Adams is one of the canonized Founding Fathers, we must necessarily take his ideas as written in stone now and forever more. Or at least according to the original intent folks.
IS 'JUDICIAL ACTIVISM' REALLY A BAD THING?
Judges who declare laws unconstitutional are accused of judicial activism. Frankly, given the popular definition of "judicial activism," I don't see this as a bad thiing.
In fact, the anger should be directed at legislators who pass unconstitutional laws. If Congress passed only laws that respected the Constitution and the individual's constitutionally-guaranteed rights, then the judges wouldn't have to worry about this.
A recent US Supreme Court case declared Texas' anti-sodomy law unconstitutional. Critics said that it was yet another example of the courts usurping power from the people's representatives. In reality, it was the Texas legislature at fault. THEY were the ones who violated the constitution by with an egregious and unwarranted invasion of privacy. It was the LEGISLATORS who were engaing in a power grab at the expense of the people. The court merely told the legislature: hands off.
The US Supreme Court didn't invent the right of consenting adults to be left alone in the privacy of their own home; they merely restored a right that should never have been legally taken away in the first place.
If not for 'judicial activism,' public venues might still be segregated in some places. If not for 'judicial activism,' interracial marriage would probably still be illegal in some parts. If not for 'judicial activism,' the right to privacy have been continued to be denied.
IS 'JUDICIAL ACTIVISM' JUST A LIBERAL THING?
Judges "usurping" the role of the Congress is a charge often laid by conservatives. Yet, it's wrong to oversimplify as liberal judges versus conservative populists. Consider these two examples:
Shortly after Bill Clinton took office, Congress passed and Clinton signed a law making it a federal crime to possess weapons on school property. Perhaps a noble goal, said critics, but not something the federal government should be involved in. The Supreme Court agreed and struck down the law. Conservatives did not accuse the Court of judicial activism and "stealing" power from Congress.
During the early part of the Depression, the courts regularly ruled various New Deal programs to be an unconstitutional use of federal power. President Franklin Roosevelt threatened to expand the number of judges on the Court and stack it with judges favorable to his way of thinking. Eventually, the Supreme Court relented and stopped standing in the way of the New Deal programs. The Court was regularly vilified by conservatives for not blocking these programs. In other words, conservatives attacked the Court for... not being "activist" enough.
CONCLUSION
I can accept the argument, advanced by many libertarians, that the courts aren't zealous enough in safeguarding individual rights. But I don't accept the contention that the court shouldn't do this at all. If the courts can't declare a law unconstitutional, then the Congress can pass any law it wants regardless of constitutional safeguards (see the Patriot Act). If Congress can run amock and there's no neutral referee to tell them to stop, then the Constitution becomes meaningless.
Now it's increasingly in the crosshairs of the left, who accuse the judiciary of partisan politicking (Bush v. Gore) and of plotting to roll back previous court cases like Miranda v. Arizona and Roe v. Wade.
The US government has three branches:
the Congress (elected by the people)
the President (elected by electors who are chosen by state legislators) and the rest of the executive
the courts (nominated by president, confirmed by one branch of Congress)
The courts are the branch of government least accountable to the people, because they are nominated by a not-popularly-elected president (before I get a ton of spiteful responses, no American president is popularly elected). Judges can be confirmed with the support of less than 10% of those elected by the people to Congress.
The federal judiciary was designed this way by America's Founding Fathers (who some are quick to canonize) so as to innoculate judges from the political hysteria of the day. In other words, they weren't supposed to make decisions just because the majority of the people wanted a particular outcome.
[For the purposes of this essay, judges, the judiciary and the Constitution are all the federal versions unless otherwise noted]
THE DEFINED ROLE OF THE COURTS
Congress passes laws. The executive enforces laws (in theory). And the courts intrepret laws. That's the separation of powers.
In the case Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court asserted its prerogative of judicial review. That's to say, its power to determine if a piece of legislation conforms with the US Constitution.
This seems straightward enough. After all, the Constitution's Article III, Section 2, in defining the courts' role, begins: The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority.
So if the courts have the power to interpret the Constitution, why do they get a bum rap when they do exactly that?
The answer is that there are different schools of thought as to how judges (and the rest of us) should interpret the Constitution.
STRICT INTERPRETATION
Some believe in a strict, literal intrepretation of the Constitution. That's to say: the Constitution means exactly what it says. And only what it says. This is problematic since certain sections of the Constitution are intentionally vague. (And because the sheer quantity of subordinate clauses, qualifications, commas and semicolons)
For example, the 9th Amendment reads The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
This amendment was included because James Madison was concerned precisely about a strictly literal interpretation of the Bill of Rights. Madison was afraid that by specifically enumerating the rights contained in the first eight amendments, certain people would conclude that other rights, that had been assumed for generations, would suddenly disappear just because they weren't explicitly mentioned.
So the 9th Amendment basically says: any rights that have been long established are still around even though we don't mention it here. This is why nearly everyone accepts the right to privacy as one of our most fundamental rights.
However, a strict interpretation says that since the Constitution doesn't explicitly mention the right to privacy, it doesn't exist; would-be Supreme Court justice Robert Bork is a subscriber to this belief. Fortunately, most people realize that the right to privacy must exist because it is the foundation of almost all of the amendments contained in the Bill of Rights.
ORIGINAL INTENT
Another common school of thought is called original intent. This is a very straight-forward theory. Whatever the framers of the Constitution intended by a particular clause or amendment is what we must respect. This is a seducing approach. It's got the advantage of being simple and unchanging. The downside is that it's simple and it's unchanging.
This approach is based on the premise that whatever a bunch of guys thought was a good idea in 1787 must bind us until the end of time. They were, as a group, white, male, property owners who wanted to protect the system for all white, male property owners. This was actually a fairly enlightened approach for the world of the late 18th century. I respect them for what they believed when they believed it. But to suggest that we import wholesale and verbatim their ideas AND INTENT into the 21st century is idiotic.
The Declaration of Independence states that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
The Founding Fathers believed in this. Except when they said men, they meant MEN, not women. And as any male slave could tell you, they sure didn't mean all men.
Another example, the 5th Amendment begins: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury...
This is another place where the Founding Fathers' INTENT of the word 'person' doesn't correspond with the common 21st century understanding of the word. Black men weren't considered by the Founding Fathers to be whole people, as the 3/5 Compromise proved. And women were nothing at all.
Some of the Founding Fathers, such as John Jay (the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court), wanted to deny Catholics the right to vote. Should we follow his intent?
Basically, according to Original Intent, constitutional rights should only apply to white, male, property owners. And perhaps only to non-Catholic white, male, property owners.
HOMOGENEOUS FOUNDERS?
And I'm not even convinced that it's even that simple to figure out what the Founding Fathers intended in all cases. They were hardly the homogenuous thinking group that popular myth suggests. They had serious, often bitter, disagreements.
The 1st Amendment (ratified in 1791) states: Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.
Yet in 1798, Congress passed the Sedition Act. The Sedition Act mandate a fine and imprisonment for any persons [who] shall unlawfully combine or conspire together, with intent to oppose any measure or measures of the government of the United States... as well as for any person shall write, print, utter. Or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered or published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States.
The deliciously vague Sedition Act was signed into law by John Adams. But since John Adams is one of the canonized Founding Fathers, we must necessarily take his ideas as written in stone now and forever more. Or at least according to the original intent folks.
IS 'JUDICIAL ACTIVISM' REALLY A BAD THING?
Judges who declare laws unconstitutional are accused of judicial activism. Frankly, given the popular definition of "judicial activism," I don't see this as a bad thiing.
In fact, the anger should be directed at legislators who pass unconstitutional laws. If Congress passed only laws that respected the Constitution and the individual's constitutionally-guaranteed rights, then the judges wouldn't have to worry about this.
A recent US Supreme Court case declared Texas' anti-sodomy law unconstitutional. Critics said that it was yet another example of the courts usurping power from the people's representatives. In reality, it was the Texas legislature at fault. THEY were the ones who violated the constitution by with an egregious and unwarranted invasion of privacy. It was the LEGISLATORS who were engaing in a power grab at the expense of the people. The court merely told the legislature: hands off.
The US Supreme Court didn't invent the right of consenting adults to be left alone in the privacy of their own home; they merely restored a right that should never have been legally taken away in the first place.
If not for 'judicial activism,' public venues might still be segregated in some places. If not for 'judicial activism,' interracial marriage would probably still be illegal in some parts. If not for 'judicial activism,' the right to privacy have been continued to be denied.
IS 'JUDICIAL ACTIVISM' JUST A LIBERAL THING?
Judges "usurping" the role of the Congress is a charge often laid by conservatives. Yet, it's wrong to oversimplify as liberal judges versus conservative populists. Consider these two examples:
Shortly after Bill Clinton took office, Congress passed and Clinton signed a law making it a federal crime to possess weapons on school property. Perhaps a noble goal, said critics, but not something the federal government should be involved in. The Supreme Court agreed and struck down the law. Conservatives did not accuse the Court of judicial activism and "stealing" power from Congress.
During the early part of the Depression, the courts regularly ruled various New Deal programs to be an unconstitutional use of federal power. President Franklin Roosevelt threatened to expand the number of judges on the Court and stack it with judges favorable to his way of thinking. Eventually, the Supreme Court relented and stopped standing in the way of the New Deal programs. The Court was regularly vilified by conservatives for not blocking these programs. In other words, conservatives attacked the Court for... not being "activist" enough.
CONCLUSION
I can accept the argument, advanced by many libertarians, that the courts aren't zealous enough in safeguarding individual rights. But I don't accept the contention that the court shouldn't do this at all. If the courts can't declare a law unconstitutional, then the Congress can pass any law it wants regardless of constitutional safeguards (see the Patriot Act). If Congress can run amock and there's no neutral referee to tell them to stop, then the Constitution becomes meaningless.
Chicago Public Radio on youth and avoiding global conflict
Chicago Public Radio has a great series entitled "Our Next Generation: Avoiding Global Conflict." The series explores how youth deal with conflict both here in Chicago and around the globe. Conflicts take many shapes and forms around the world. But all conflicts have a serious impact on youth with stories and interviews about the roles youth play in global conflicts. Stories include: one man’s efforts to rehabilitate gang members in El Salvador, services to help teenage refugees find lost family members, and a Ugandan girl’s struggle to come to terms with her past as a child soldier.
Series' segments can be heard via Real Audio by clicking here.
Series' segments can be heard via Real Audio by clicking here.
Wednesday, June 02, 2004
"For the good of the game"?
The international soccer federation FIFA has slapped an indefinite ban on Kenya's national teams. The country's government is accused of meddling in the affairs of the soccer federation, the KFF. In 2001, my adopted country of Guinea was also banned for about a year from FIFA for the same reason and the international body has threatened similiar sanctions on Brazil and Cameroon, though such a ban was never carried out on those two powerhouses. Ironically, Kenya had a African Nations Cup qualifying match scheduled this weekend... against Guinea.
The Kenyan Sports Minister dissolved the federation in March. The KFF has been at loggerheads with the government for several months over allegations of financial mismanagement, according to the BBC.
Now this is tricky. I understand FIFA's objective of keeping politics and sports separated (at least as much as possible). No one wants a repeat of what happened to the Ivory Coast team who were detained by the military junta for a few days following a surprising early exit from the 2000 African Nations Cup. Or worse, no one wants what happened to soccer players in Saddam's Iraq when they failed to win important matches. Football is very political in many countries. Presidents' popularity can rise and fall with the fortunes of the national team: ask Senegal's Abdoulaye Wade.
One the other hand, such a hardline almost would seem to give impunity to soccer federations. They can do whatever they want and the government can't legally crack down on them for fear of incurring FIFA's wrath. The federations in Kenya, Guinea and Brazil have all been accused of corruption or financial mismanagement. Now, if any other business commits corruption, we would laud the government for cracking down. But in soccer, it's unacceptable?
FIFA, whose self-serving motto is "for the good of the game," really needs to offer advice or guidelines to governments as to what should be done if a soccer federation is getting out of control.
But this is unlikely since FIFA itself is widely accused of... corruption and financial mismanagement.
The Kenyan Sports Minister dissolved the federation in March. The KFF has been at loggerheads with the government for several months over allegations of financial mismanagement, according to the BBC.
Now this is tricky. I understand FIFA's objective of keeping politics and sports separated (at least as much as possible). No one wants a repeat of what happened to the Ivory Coast team who were detained by the military junta for a few days following a surprising early exit from the 2000 African Nations Cup. Or worse, no one wants what happened to soccer players in Saddam's Iraq when they failed to win important matches. Football is very political in many countries. Presidents' popularity can rise and fall with the fortunes of the national team: ask Senegal's Abdoulaye Wade.
One the other hand, such a hardline almost would seem to give impunity to soccer federations. They can do whatever they want and the government can't legally crack down on them for fear of incurring FIFA's wrath. The federations in Kenya, Guinea and Brazil have all been accused of corruption or financial mismanagement. Now, if any other business commits corruption, we would laud the government for cracking down. But in soccer, it's unacceptable?
FIFA, whose self-serving motto is "for the good of the game," really needs to offer advice or guidelines to governments as to what should be done if a soccer federation is getting out of control.
But this is unlikely since FIFA itself is widely accused of... corruption and financial mismanagement.
Tuesday, June 01, 2004
Press review and commentary
Some American Catholics seem to think that we should only pay attention Pope John Paul II's pronouncements on abortion and homosexuality. Yet the Pope himself realizes that the Church needs to connect with its members or risk becoming increasingly irrelevant. The Pontiff told American bishops that the Church in the US "is called to respond to the profound religious needs and aspirations of a society increasingly in danger of forgetting its spiritual roots and yielding to a purely materialistic and soulless vision of the world" adding that "Taking up this challenge, however, will require a realistic and comprehensive reading of the 'signs of the times,' in order to develop a persuasive presentation of the Catholic faith and prepare young people especially to dialogue with their contemporaries about the Christian message and its relevance to the building of a more just, humane and peaceful world."
An opinion piece Alter Net noted how Wal-Mart has received more than $1 billion in economic development subsidies from states for its stores and distribution centers. The subsidies have come as many states are forced by White House tax cuts and reductions in federal grants to make tough budget decisions. The $1 billion was a significant chunk of the company's total $9 billion in PROFITS (not revenue) last year. The essay noted a key justification for corporate subsidies is the idea that a large project will expand overall business in an area; Wal-Mart executives tout their stores as a positive economic force in the community. But the Good Jobs First report argues that, unlike factories which add jobs and export products outside the region, big chain retailers like Wal-Mart "do little more than take revenues away from existing merchants and may put them out of business and leave their workers unemployed. It's quite possible that a new Wal-Mart will destroy as many (or more) jobs than it creates." And "since many Wal-Mart [jobs] are lower-paying and part-time, they will do less to stimulate the economy." Philip Mattera, research director of Good Jobs First, says Wal-Mart's "negative effect on small businesses in the communities where it locates and its contribution to urban sprawl and traffic raise serious questions about the value of giving it sizable financial incentives to expand."
Similiarly, James Kunstler, a nationally known author and activist from my region, noted the irony that [i]n 1973, when the first shopping mall opened on the outskirts of my town, Saratoga Springs (NY), the local paper ran a special Sunday supplement touting its wonders and marvels. The advertisers who paid for it were all downtown merchants; and within ten years virtually all of them were out of business. He added that [t]hose local merchants were led into a very fundamental error in thinking that everybody in business -- mall builder and main street shop-owner alike -- wanted the same thing. "We mall builders are pro-business, and you Main Streeters are pro-business, so get behind this mall idea and there will be more business for everybody!" Plus, that thing they all wanted would be good for their country. What was that thing they wanted, anyway? A bright future, I suppose. The mall promised it in the way that a visit from an unusually benevolent UFO might signify shining gifts from on high, the perfect set-up for a "cargo cult."
A Christian Science Monitor article wonders if the military's officer corps is too political.
Iraq is not the only place where a "liberating" power is accused of eyeing the country's oil. The Sydney Morning Herald reports that East Timorese President Xanana Gusmao has accused the Australian Government of pursuing a policy on the rich seabed oil reserves between the countries that "offends our intelligence". Mr Gusmao said he could not accept the [Australian] Government stance in negotiations that opened last month, and he wants to break off the talks and begin afresh. In an interview with the Herald he said the Government had failed to respect the legitimacy of East Timor's claim, and threatened to make his country "a permanent beggar - we will be like the Solomon Islands, like Libya, like Haiti." Denied access to its most valuable economic asset, the multi-billion-dollar oil and gas deposits under the Timor Sea, East Timor, one of the world's poorest countries, would depend on foreign aid permanently.
Canada's CBC reported on a landmark court case. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled against a Saskatchewan farmer Friday, saying since U.S. biotechnology giant Monsanto holds a patent on a gene in its canola seed, it can control the use of the plant... The company inserts a gene into a canola plant to make it pesticide-resistant. Monsanto holds patents over the gene and the insertion process, and argued the patent should extend to control of the plant. Though it's somewhat more controversial since the seeds from the mutated plant blew on to an adjacent field of another farmer, who Monstanto sued. Justice Louise Arbour, who wrote the minority dissenting opinion, argued that the gene and the process could be patented, but that patent protection cannot be extended to the whole plant.
The BBC's Focus on Africa magazine reported on the wave of democracy that has gripped Africa in the last 14 years as well as its setbacks. The piece also noted that accountable government was not introduced to Africa by European colonials. Legendary Nigerian singer Fela Kuti wanted Africans to look to their own traditions for political development. Pre-colonial Africa had its military dictatorships, but many regimes were bound by constitutions and forms of accountability. Oyo kings were obliged to commit suicide if presented with a calabash by a delegation of elders. Ashanti princes could be dethroned. African civil society, nice and nasty, goes back much longer than today's non-governmental organisations. Authoritarian dictatorships (and repressive pseudo-democracies, for that matter) are far less authentically African than representative democracies. Though the article does underline the fundamental hurdle sub-Saharan Africa must overcome if it wants to recapture its tradition of accountable governance: politics remains too often an expensive game with the spoils of office being shared between members of the same elite wearing different political colours. Economic uncertainties chip away at idealism and new style regimes find it easier to co-opt and corrupt rather than to bludgeon their opponents.
An opinion piece Alter Net noted how Wal-Mart has received more than $1 billion in economic development subsidies from states for its stores and distribution centers. The subsidies have come as many states are forced by White House tax cuts and reductions in federal grants to make tough budget decisions. The $1 billion was a significant chunk of the company's total $9 billion in PROFITS (not revenue) last year. The essay noted a key justification for corporate subsidies is the idea that a large project will expand overall business in an area; Wal-Mart executives tout their stores as a positive economic force in the community. But the Good Jobs First report argues that, unlike factories which add jobs and export products outside the region, big chain retailers like Wal-Mart "do little more than take revenues away from existing merchants and may put them out of business and leave their workers unemployed. It's quite possible that a new Wal-Mart will destroy as many (or more) jobs than it creates." And "since many Wal-Mart [jobs] are lower-paying and part-time, they will do less to stimulate the economy." Philip Mattera, research director of Good Jobs First, says Wal-Mart's "negative effect on small businesses in the communities where it locates and its contribution to urban sprawl and traffic raise serious questions about the value of giving it sizable financial incentives to expand."
Similiarly, James Kunstler, a nationally known author and activist from my region, noted the irony that [i]n 1973, when the first shopping mall opened on the outskirts of my town, Saratoga Springs (NY), the local paper ran a special Sunday supplement touting its wonders and marvels. The advertisers who paid for it were all downtown merchants; and within ten years virtually all of them were out of business. He added that [t]hose local merchants were led into a very fundamental error in thinking that everybody in business -- mall builder and main street shop-owner alike -- wanted the same thing. "We mall builders are pro-business, and you Main Streeters are pro-business, so get behind this mall idea and there will be more business for everybody!" Plus, that thing they all wanted would be good for their country. What was that thing they wanted, anyway? A bright future, I suppose. The mall promised it in the way that a visit from an unusually benevolent UFO might signify shining gifts from on high, the perfect set-up for a "cargo cult."
A Christian Science Monitor article wonders if the military's officer corps is too political.
Iraq is not the only place where a "liberating" power is accused of eyeing the country's oil. The Sydney Morning Herald reports that East Timorese President Xanana Gusmao has accused the Australian Government of pursuing a policy on the rich seabed oil reserves between the countries that "offends our intelligence". Mr Gusmao said he could not accept the [Australian] Government stance in negotiations that opened last month, and he wants to break off the talks and begin afresh. In an interview with the Herald he said the Government had failed to respect the legitimacy of East Timor's claim, and threatened to make his country "a permanent beggar - we will be like the Solomon Islands, like Libya, like Haiti." Denied access to its most valuable economic asset, the multi-billion-dollar oil and gas deposits under the Timor Sea, East Timor, one of the world's poorest countries, would depend on foreign aid permanently.
Canada's CBC reported on a landmark court case. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled against a Saskatchewan farmer Friday, saying since U.S. biotechnology giant Monsanto holds a patent on a gene in its canola seed, it can control the use of the plant... The company inserts a gene into a canola plant to make it pesticide-resistant. Monsanto holds patents over the gene and the insertion process, and argued the patent should extend to control of the plant. Though it's somewhat more controversial since the seeds from the mutated plant blew on to an adjacent field of another farmer, who Monstanto sued. Justice Louise Arbour, who wrote the minority dissenting opinion, argued that the gene and the process could be patented, but that patent protection cannot be extended to the whole plant.
The BBC's Focus on Africa magazine reported on the wave of democracy that has gripped Africa in the last 14 years as well as its setbacks. The piece also noted that accountable government was not introduced to Africa by European colonials. Legendary Nigerian singer Fela Kuti wanted Africans to look to their own traditions for political development. Pre-colonial Africa had its military dictatorships, but many regimes were bound by constitutions and forms of accountability. Oyo kings were obliged to commit suicide if presented with a calabash by a delegation of elders. Ashanti princes could be dethroned. African civil society, nice and nasty, goes back much longer than today's non-governmental organisations. Authoritarian dictatorships (and repressive pseudo-democracies, for that matter) are far less authentically African than representative democracies. Though the article does underline the fundamental hurdle sub-Saharan Africa must overcome if it wants to recapture its tradition of accountable governance: politics remains too often an expensive game with the spoils of office being shared between members of the same elite wearing different political colours. Economic uncertainties chip away at idealism and new style regimes find it easier to co-opt and corrupt rather than to bludgeon their opponents.
Local CEO: raise the minimum wage [guest essay]
[A guest essay by a friend of mine]
Raise the Minimum Wage
by Matt Funiciello
CEO, Rock Hill Bakery
I am the owner of Rock Hill Bakehouse, a small, wholesale bread bakery in upstate New York. As an employer of forty people, it is my job to ensure that they each receive a livable wage. This can often be a Herculean task, but it is my responsibility, nonetheless. As the CEO of a 2 million dollar corporation, I make just over $50,000 dollars a year. This is well below the six-figure salary commonly garnered by CEOs in similar businesses, but, as all CEOs should, I have consciously decided not to live off my workers’ backs.
I care about the people who work for me and I feel it would be immoral to keep the bulk of the profits to myself. I live in the world, not in some “gated community”, where I can avoid the realities that plague my fellow workmates. I have worked unbelievably hard and I do feel that I am entitled to a little bit extra, but I’m honest enough to know that my investment could never justify a salary dozens of times larger than my entry level employees. I am astounded that other CEOs feel they are entitled to thousands of times what they pay their workers. I see myself as an empowered worker and I see [New York] State’s current minimum wage as misguided and insufficient, at best, and as cruel and the result of too much attention paid to corporate lobby efforts, at worst.
The “WalMarts” of this world market themselves as models of honor and decency. Why, then, are such a huge preponderance of their employees paid starvation wages ($5.15 - $6.00 per hour)? No self-respecting human being would ever dream of paying someone so little for their labor and, perhaps, that’s the key. Most large companies are not run by compassionate human beings, but by the unchecked and unconscious avarice of their stockholders. This situation has created a whole new class of unthinking robber barons, totally bereft of conscience.
I think of small business as a canvas by which one may express a more enlightened model of the employee/employer relationship. There are many obstacles to successfully completing the “portrait”, primarily that we are forced into unfair competition with huge corporations who eagerly suckle at the government teat (subsidized development, payroll, benefits, tax cuts, grants, etc). While small business (the largest employer group in the United States) sees it as its duty to make its own way and does not denigrate its trade by demanding handouts, big business doesn’t seem to have this problem. Pride in one’s ability to be self-sufficient, like compassion, is a uniquely human characteristic and not a function of greed. It’s cruel irony that these companies are allowed to use our own tax money against us in their constant push to achieve economic hegemony over small business ands its workers. They are truly pariahs.
In 2002, the gross individual income in New York State was roughly $684 billion dollars. This means that, if shared equally, each three-person household would have brought in just over $108,000 dollars. In actuality, the median household income was just $36,000 dollars. Who got the other $72,000 dollars? A very small minority of the population keeps the lion’s share of the wealth, apparently feeling justified in keeping more than two-thirds of our potential income! Boy, they must work awfully hard!
I recognize that everyone’s contribution in the workplace is not equal and therefore, they are not necessarily entitled to an equal share. However, I am only a fan of regulated capitalism, in which greed and bad judgment are forcibly tempered by both compassion and common sense. The best way to remedy this situation is to raise the minimum wage. It’s long overdue. Small business-owners already pay far more. The unofficial minimum is much closer to $7.00 an hour, anyway.
Corporate opponents (and fake lobby groups like the NFIB [National Federation of Independent Businesses]) say that this will drive up prices. It’s very interesting to me that no one ever brings this up when Tyco CEOs pay themselves an extra 2 million dollars because they’re planning a birthday party, but the second a worker’s child says, “I’m hungry”, the world is going to come to an end. Prices might go up, but the additional money being put into workers’ hands will also fuel higher consumption. Right? Raising the minimum wage is a win-win situation. It has been in every state in which it has been affected thus far. The big-box stores will take a hit, but they will survive. They just need to change their priorities as a whole new crop of consumers become able to consider quality as a factor when making a purchase.
State officials need to stop appeasing corporate lobby groups and ignoring their mandate to take care of the people who put them in office. They need to increase the NYS minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, now. If New York would have the courage and intelligence to do this, perhaps the federal government would take note and do what is right, as well. No full-time American worker should be living below the federal poverty level. It’s shameful! If you are a worker or a small business owner, you need to support and vote for only those public officials who vow to repair this grave imbalance.
**To visit Rock Hill Bakery's website, click here
**For a portrait of the author and his enterprise, click here
Raise the Minimum Wage
by Matt Funiciello
CEO, Rock Hill Bakery
I am the owner of Rock Hill Bakehouse, a small, wholesale bread bakery in upstate New York. As an employer of forty people, it is my job to ensure that they each receive a livable wage. This can often be a Herculean task, but it is my responsibility, nonetheless. As the CEO of a 2 million dollar corporation, I make just over $50,000 dollars a year. This is well below the six-figure salary commonly garnered by CEOs in similar businesses, but, as all CEOs should, I have consciously decided not to live off my workers’ backs.
I care about the people who work for me and I feel it would be immoral to keep the bulk of the profits to myself. I live in the world, not in some “gated community”, where I can avoid the realities that plague my fellow workmates. I have worked unbelievably hard and I do feel that I am entitled to a little bit extra, but I’m honest enough to know that my investment could never justify a salary dozens of times larger than my entry level employees. I am astounded that other CEOs feel they are entitled to thousands of times what they pay their workers. I see myself as an empowered worker and I see [New York] State’s current minimum wage as misguided and insufficient, at best, and as cruel and the result of too much attention paid to corporate lobby efforts, at worst.
The “WalMarts” of this world market themselves as models of honor and decency. Why, then, are such a huge preponderance of their employees paid starvation wages ($5.15 - $6.00 per hour)? No self-respecting human being would ever dream of paying someone so little for their labor and, perhaps, that’s the key. Most large companies are not run by compassionate human beings, but by the unchecked and unconscious avarice of their stockholders. This situation has created a whole new class of unthinking robber barons, totally bereft of conscience.
I think of small business as a canvas by which one may express a more enlightened model of the employee/employer relationship. There are many obstacles to successfully completing the “portrait”, primarily that we are forced into unfair competition with huge corporations who eagerly suckle at the government teat (subsidized development, payroll, benefits, tax cuts, grants, etc). While small business (the largest employer group in the United States) sees it as its duty to make its own way and does not denigrate its trade by demanding handouts, big business doesn’t seem to have this problem. Pride in one’s ability to be self-sufficient, like compassion, is a uniquely human characteristic and not a function of greed. It’s cruel irony that these companies are allowed to use our own tax money against us in their constant push to achieve economic hegemony over small business ands its workers. They are truly pariahs.
In 2002, the gross individual income in New York State was roughly $684 billion dollars. This means that, if shared equally, each three-person household would have brought in just over $108,000 dollars. In actuality, the median household income was just $36,000 dollars. Who got the other $72,000 dollars? A very small minority of the population keeps the lion’s share of the wealth, apparently feeling justified in keeping more than two-thirds of our potential income! Boy, they must work awfully hard!
I recognize that everyone’s contribution in the workplace is not equal and therefore, they are not necessarily entitled to an equal share. However, I am only a fan of regulated capitalism, in which greed and bad judgment are forcibly tempered by both compassion and common sense. The best way to remedy this situation is to raise the minimum wage. It’s long overdue. Small business-owners already pay far more. The unofficial minimum is much closer to $7.00 an hour, anyway.
Corporate opponents (and fake lobby groups like the NFIB [National Federation of Independent Businesses]) say that this will drive up prices. It’s very interesting to me that no one ever brings this up when Tyco CEOs pay themselves an extra 2 million dollars because they’re planning a birthday party, but the second a worker’s child says, “I’m hungry”, the world is going to come to an end. Prices might go up, but the additional money being put into workers’ hands will also fuel higher consumption. Right? Raising the minimum wage is a win-win situation. It has been in every state in which it has been affected thus far. The big-box stores will take a hit, but they will survive. They just need to change their priorities as a whole new crop of consumers become able to consider quality as a factor when making a purchase.
State officials need to stop appeasing corporate lobby groups and ignoring their mandate to take care of the people who put them in office. They need to increase the NYS minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, now. If New York would have the courage and intelligence to do this, perhaps the federal government would take note and do what is right, as well. No full-time American worker should be living below the federal poverty level. It’s shameful! If you are a worker or a small business owner, you need to support and vote for only those public officials who vow to repair this grave imbalance.
**To visit Rock Hill Bakery's website, click here
**For a portrait of the author and his enterprise, click here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)