Hello all!
I expect that a few people might actually read this blog now, so I pledge to write the most readable material possible during the time I am in China. I will include a phrase in Chinese for everyone to learn and a meaningful proverb or quote from the Eastern tradition with each post. In addition, I will put the politics of my previous posts on hiatus for the interim.
Now that I've gotten that out of the way... It's almost 11 PM Central Time. I'm sitting in Abe Lopez' basement, chatting and laughing while we pack and take care of last minute details. He's sent me along with a good luck charm, a miniature stuffed koala bear that he purchased while in Australia this summer. I have named him Theodore Blair Dorsey (or T.B.D.). This gift means more to me Abe probably thinks it does. Now I won't have to face my first international flight alone! Plus, he might serve as a flotation device... Just in case...
As far as I can tell, I have everything in order. My passport is nestled into a folder with my flight information and all other important documents. I really only have two questions at this point. One, I really hope they let me take my duffel bag as carry on. It weighs about 65 lbs. and would probably require the strength of a Nepali porter to stow it as checked luggage. A Nepali porter that will cost me many pennies over the 50-lb. checked bag limit. I hope I can bring it aboard.
My other question is whether I will be able to find the Korean Airlines flight gate. I mean, I know O'Hare is huge and has tons of different airlines, but I'm used to checking for Southwest, Northwest, Delta, United, AirTran, etc. Just part one in that caravan of new experiences awaiting me.
So I'm nervous, anxious, jittery, excited, worried, hopeful, giddy, pensive, and thirsty. I'll take care of the thirst in a minute, but I want to revel in the other emotions for a little while. I plan on soaking in the anticipation a little bit longer. That way the culminating moment when I arrive in bustling Beijing Airport will be all the sweeter. At least I hope so.
Between now and my next post I will be in transit. You will be able to contact me through Facebook, AIM (breonkid), Skype (william.breon) or e-mail (wrbreon@yahoo.com). Send me many messages, I will respond to everyone, promised.
Chinese of the day: I'm doing well, thank you!
Wo hen hao, xie xie!
(WHOA hun HOW, She-ay She-ay)
Yours Truly,
The Conscientious Observer
"A leader is best when people barely know he exists, when his work is done, his aim fulfilled, they will say: we did it ourselves. " - Lao Tzu
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Time For Some Enhanced (Blogging) Techniques...
Greetings again!
Hopefully my writing isn't painful enough for my readers (if you're out there) to denounce it as torture. I've thoroughly researched all legal precedents applying to my techniques in blogging, and can safely say that none of them are extreme enough to press the boundaries of the United States Constitution or international law. (Actually, I didn't research at all, but if something comes up, let me know so I can hide when the FBI and Interpol come knocking.)
The same cannot be said about the interrogation tactics employed by the U.S. military and the CIA since the start of the 21st century. I'm particularly peeved by former Vice President Dick Cheney, who said, about enhanced interrogation techniques, that "[The Obama administration] called it torture. I don't believe it was torture. This was taken from a May 12 interview with Neil Cavuto of Fox News (Entertainment)
By the way, I have decided to add the title of Entertainment onto the end of the Fox News title because they obviously forgot to declare it themselves somehow. Their style of journalism more closely resembles entertainment than journalism, so that's how I'm going to refer to them from now on. Perhaps I'll turn that rant into another blog...
In any event, Cheney doesn't believe "enhanced interrogation techniques" were torture. These techniques included waterboarding, stress positions, sleep deprivation, and forced nudity, according to the executive summary of a Senate Committee on Armed Service report published on December 11, 2008.
The United Nations, however, would disagree. In the United Nations Convention Against Torture, which went into effect in 1987, defines it as the following:
"For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession.."
I won't push the argument too far on the other three. Just know that by sleep deprivation, I mean that some detainees were forced to stay awake through a variety of measures for seven to eleven days. Forcing someone into a stress position requires them to stand or contort themselves in such a way that focus all weight and support on one or two muscles until the subject succumbs to muscle failure. And forced nudity, a la Abu Ghraib, offends the traditions of the detainees to such an extent that it would cause intense mental suffering.
But waterboarding? A crime that the federal courts once sentenced a Texas sheriff to ten years in prison for? A crime that was used to prosecute Japanese military officers for in 1947? A crime that has been consistently described as torture by the American legal system nearly every time the topic has entered the halls of justice?
Still don't think it's waterboarding? Youtube the demonstrations of it. There's one particularly evocative one performed in front of the Justice Department in 2007. Click link here: Waterboarding Demonstration
By any reasonable, accepted definition of torture, waterboarding is torture.
In America? By Americans? Cynics would tell me that America never held itself to those standards, that I should put away my rose-colored glasses.
But I don't like that explanation. We need to ensure that we don't torture again. In addition, those who pursued, approved, and implemented the program of torture should be prosecuted. These people who were in our government stained the name and reputation of the United States with their actions. We wouldn't allow other perpetrators to escape unpunished.
But they won't be punished. And we'll probably torture again. Comments, thoughts? Disagree? Agree?
Let me hear it,
The Conscientious Observer
"[Waterboarding] isn't simulated drowning. It is a process in which the individual is actually drowning even though he is not underwater." - Malcolm Nance, Former Navy Interrogation Instructor
Hopefully my writing isn't painful enough for my readers (if you're out there) to denounce it as torture. I've thoroughly researched all legal precedents applying to my techniques in blogging, and can safely say that none of them are extreme enough to press the boundaries of the United States Constitution or international law. (Actually, I didn't research at all, but if something comes up, let me know so I can hide when the FBI and Interpol come knocking.)
The same cannot be said about the interrogation tactics employed by the U.S. military and the CIA since the start of the 21st century. I'm particularly peeved by former Vice President Dick Cheney, who said, about enhanced interrogation techniques, that "[The Obama administration] called it torture. I don't believe it was torture. This was taken from a May 12 interview with Neil Cavuto of Fox News (Entertainment)
By the way, I have decided to add the title of Entertainment onto the end of the Fox News title because they obviously forgot to declare it themselves somehow. Their style of journalism more closely resembles entertainment than journalism, so that's how I'm going to refer to them from now on. Perhaps I'll turn that rant into another blog...
In any event, Cheney doesn't believe "enhanced interrogation techniques" were torture. These techniques included waterboarding, stress positions, sleep deprivation, and forced nudity, according to the executive summary of a Senate Committee on Armed Service report published on December 11, 2008.
The United Nations, however, would disagree. In the United Nations Convention Against Torture, which went into effect in 1987, defines it as the following:
"For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession.."
I won't push the argument too far on the other three. Just know that by sleep deprivation, I mean that some detainees were forced to stay awake through a variety of measures for seven to eleven days. Forcing someone into a stress position requires them to stand or contort themselves in such a way that focus all weight and support on one or two muscles until the subject succumbs to muscle failure. And forced nudity, a la Abu Ghraib, offends the traditions of the detainees to such an extent that it would cause intense mental suffering.
But waterboarding? A crime that the federal courts once sentenced a Texas sheriff to ten years in prison for? A crime that was used to prosecute Japanese military officers for in 1947? A crime that has been consistently described as torture by the American legal system nearly every time the topic has entered the halls of justice?
Still don't think it's waterboarding? Youtube the demonstrations of it. There's one particularly evocative one performed in front of the Justice Department in 2007. Click link here: Waterboarding Demonstration
By any reasonable, accepted definition of torture, waterboarding is torture.
In America? By Americans? Cynics would tell me that America never held itself to those standards, that I should put away my rose-colored glasses.
But I don't like that explanation. We need to ensure that we don't torture again. In addition, those who pursued, approved, and implemented the program of torture should be prosecuted. These people who were in our government stained the name and reputation of the United States with their actions. We wouldn't allow other perpetrators to escape unpunished.
But they won't be punished. And we'll probably torture again. Comments, thoughts? Disagree? Agree?
Let me hear it,
The Conscientious Observer
"[Waterboarding] isn't simulated drowning. It is a process in which the individual is actually drowning even though he is not underwater." - Malcolm Nance, Former Navy Interrogation Instructor
Saturday, April 11, 2009
A One-Sided Imaginary Conversation: How We Should Conceptualize Corporations
Greetings!
Nice to see you again! How's your mother? What's new? That's great to hear, great to hear...
Oh, me? Well, thanks for asking! Lately I've been interested in economics and economic theory. Yeah, it can get pretty dry, but it's fascinating stuff. Since the world operates based on an economic theory (or an amalgam of many), it makes a lot of sense to view historical trends in light of the theory that the civilization operated from. It's kind of like looking at a great piece of art after looking at the artist's notes. It just makes more sense that way.
What have I learned from it? Good question! Lots of things, but one idea in particular stands out. I'll start it off with a question... what is your perception of corporate America?
I don't blame you, mine isn't very good either. And there's plenty of good evidence to support that perception. From Enron and insidious book-cooking practices to price gauging and obvious collusion by major oil companies to greedy investment firms and sub-prime securities and derivatives, the list goes on and on. When a corporation is seen taking steps to clean up its act, whether in terms of ethics or the environment, slack-jawed observers can't help but applaud, at least once the initial period of astonishment wanes.
I agree with you, it shouldn't be that way. But like I was saying, there's an economic theory that makes sense of all of this (or at least some of it). In this case, I'll point to an article printed in the New York Times in 1970 by one of history's most influential economists, Milton Friedman.
Haha, no not the board game. I wish! What's that? Yeah, I've heard that joke a few times before.
Anyway, what Friedman says is this: corporations are "artificial people" designed to act exclusively in their shareholders self-interest. Basically, a corporation's sole pursuit is to maximize profit within the bounds of law and society. Makes sense, right?
An explanation like that frees corporations from having to care about anything else. When you look through that lens, anything goes as long as it helps make a profit and it doesn't break a law. This sets a corporation up to act freely as a free radical on the free market, taking the path of least resistance and maximum profits.
You say you don't see where there's a problem yet? That's fine! There isn't any yet. The corporation is now this amoral, artificial person, totally devoted to its self-interest. Kind of like a computer virus out on the Internet, except while this computer virus gobbles up some resources, it also creates much more in terms of value and new resources. Along the way, the corporation creates a lot of paying jobs too.
The problem comes in with setting up a framework to let corporations operate in. Just like real people, "artificial people" (corporations) need rules to keep them driving on the right side of the road, throwing their trash in a litter bin, and refraining from shouting "Fire!" in crowded theatres. We need to restrict a corporation's ability to do certain things because we've set them up to only act in their self-interest. Remember, there's other corporations out there, and this imaginary world that corporations exist in isn't actually all that imaginary. Corporations may not take form in the real world, but the people they employ act upon on our world and our environment by providing our food, water, electricity, cars, eyeglasses, toy cars, and everything else. Also, our employment.
How do we restrain these corporations? Well there's a variety of approaches. Government regulation and oversight is the most common one. Government can set fines, enforce laws, and shut down a corporation if it doesn't play by the rules. Responsible media and journalism help too. They can keep corporations from acting in ways that most people would reject, but that wouldn't necessarily break a law. Finally, third party NGO's and citizen advocacy groups play a role too. They help draw media, consumer, and government attention to corporations that are being sneaky about breaking rules, or help government develop better rules in a constantly changing world.
This balance works well until you run into free-market ideologues. Beginning in the 1970's and running up until a few months ago, removing the rules was all the rage. Now in some cases that made sense: government had set up some stupid, unnecessary rules. However, a lot of the rules that were chopped, edited, or softened played an important role in making corporations behave in a complex world. Some corporations, no longer restrained by these rules, did things in their short-sighted self-interest that made big messes of things, like the stuff we talked about earlier.
This happened because people started to include government in the operation of the business. Kind of like when criminals get a few dirty cops in the act. Prominent businessmen and women convinced enough people that what was in the best interest of business WAS the best interest for everyone else.
Now while this is presumptuous enough on the surface, it's also ridiculous. Corporations are artificial people, remember? They are only concerned about what is in their perceived self-interest. Not yours or mine.
Imagine if we set up this world such that your self-interest ran everything. Yeah, you get the fancy cars, the fine cuisine, the beautiful women on your arm. Looks pretty good, huh? Now picture the world set up in my self-interest. Sucks for you now, huh!
That's what's happened here. The rich and powerful have convinced us that what's good for them is good for all of us. Except it's not. For example, they've convinced us that it's good for all of us that corporate officers are indemnified when their corporations screw up bad. That IS good for them, but not for everybody else! That's like me saying you're responsible if you drive your car into mine, but I'm indemnified if I do the same to you. I agree, that doesn't make any sense at all!
While the corporations and the people who benefit from them the most have done well, average people haven't. Did you know that corporate executive pay has increased at a rate ten times that of the average worker since the early 1980's? We've taken away so many rules that corporations are destroying and littering all over our economy for profit, like barracudas in a public pool.
The most ironic part of it all is that corporations actually operate the best when they operate in a framework that protects consumers, employees, the environment and everything else too. It increases efficiency, builds trust, and provides for economic stability. These factors are the keys to sustained conomic growth, a pattern that hepls everybody win.
To ensure sustained growth, we need to restore the balance of rules constraining corporations so they remember to drive on the right side of the road and throw away their trash again. In order to do that, we need a major paradigm shift in our politics. Corporations don't vote for a reason... government is not supposed to represent them! Government represents the people and needs to protect the people from self-interested corporations. This means removing corporate money from politics and retooling government regulations and regulatory bodies to keep corporations from ruining everything.
Now that doesn't mean stifling corporations by putting up rules just for the sake of putting up rules. But the metronome is certainly not pointing in that direction at the moment, and we need some momentum behind smart regulatory policies a lot more than we need to free corporations up to cause more trouble.
What's that? Sorry, I didn't realize you had fallen asleep. I guess that did go longer than I expected.
Please comment if you're still reading. I'd love to hear what you think!
Eruditely,
The Conscientious Observer
"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini
Nice to see you again! How's your mother? What's new? That's great to hear, great to hear...
Oh, me? Well, thanks for asking! Lately I've been interested in economics and economic theory. Yeah, it can get pretty dry, but it's fascinating stuff. Since the world operates based on an economic theory (or an amalgam of many), it makes a lot of sense to view historical trends in light of the theory that the civilization operated from. It's kind of like looking at a great piece of art after looking at the artist's notes. It just makes more sense that way.
What have I learned from it? Good question! Lots of things, but one idea in particular stands out. I'll start it off with a question... what is your perception of corporate America?
I don't blame you, mine isn't very good either. And there's plenty of good evidence to support that perception. From Enron and insidious book-cooking practices to price gauging and obvious collusion by major oil companies to greedy investment firms and sub-prime securities and derivatives, the list goes on and on. When a corporation is seen taking steps to clean up its act, whether in terms of ethics or the environment, slack-jawed observers can't help but applaud, at least once the initial period of astonishment wanes.
I agree with you, it shouldn't be that way. But like I was saying, there's an economic theory that makes sense of all of this (or at least some of it). In this case, I'll point to an article printed in the New York Times in 1970 by one of history's most influential economists, Milton Friedman.
Haha, no not the board game. I wish! What's that? Yeah, I've heard that joke a few times before.
Anyway, what Friedman says is this: corporations are "artificial people" designed to act exclusively in their shareholders self-interest. Basically, a corporation's sole pursuit is to maximize profit within the bounds of law and society. Makes sense, right?
An explanation like that frees corporations from having to care about anything else. When you look through that lens, anything goes as long as it helps make a profit and it doesn't break a law. This sets a corporation up to act freely as a free radical on the free market, taking the path of least resistance and maximum profits.
You say you don't see where there's a problem yet? That's fine! There isn't any yet. The corporation is now this amoral, artificial person, totally devoted to its self-interest. Kind of like a computer virus out on the Internet, except while this computer virus gobbles up some resources, it also creates much more in terms of value and new resources. Along the way, the corporation creates a lot of paying jobs too.
The problem comes in with setting up a framework to let corporations operate in. Just like real people, "artificial people" (corporations) need rules to keep them driving on the right side of the road, throwing their trash in a litter bin, and refraining from shouting "Fire!" in crowded theatres. We need to restrict a corporation's ability to do certain things because we've set them up to only act in their self-interest. Remember, there's other corporations out there, and this imaginary world that corporations exist in isn't actually all that imaginary. Corporations may not take form in the real world, but the people they employ act upon on our world and our environment by providing our food, water, electricity, cars, eyeglasses, toy cars, and everything else. Also, our employment.
How do we restrain these corporations? Well there's a variety of approaches. Government regulation and oversight is the most common one. Government can set fines, enforce laws, and shut down a corporation if it doesn't play by the rules. Responsible media and journalism help too. They can keep corporations from acting in ways that most people would reject, but that wouldn't necessarily break a law. Finally, third party NGO's and citizen advocacy groups play a role too. They help draw media, consumer, and government attention to corporations that are being sneaky about breaking rules, or help government develop better rules in a constantly changing world.
This balance works well until you run into free-market ideologues. Beginning in the 1970's and running up until a few months ago, removing the rules was all the rage. Now in some cases that made sense: government had set up some stupid, unnecessary rules. However, a lot of the rules that were chopped, edited, or softened played an important role in making corporations behave in a complex world. Some corporations, no longer restrained by these rules, did things in their short-sighted self-interest that made big messes of things, like the stuff we talked about earlier.
This happened because people started to include government in the operation of the business. Kind of like when criminals get a few dirty cops in the act. Prominent businessmen and women convinced enough people that what was in the best interest of business WAS the best interest for everyone else.
Now while this is presumptuous enough on the surface, it's also ridiculous. Corporations are artificial people, remember? They are only concerned about what is in their perceived self-interest. Not yours or mine.
Imagine if we set up this world such that your self-interest ran everything. Yeah, you get the fancy cars, the fine cuisine, the beautiful women on your arm. Looks pretty good, huh? Now picture the world set up in my self-interest. Sucks for you now, huh!
That's what's happened here. The rich and powerful have convinced us that what's good for them is good for all of us. Except it's not. For example, they've convinced us that it's good for all of us that corporate officers are indemnified when their corporations screw up bad. That IS good for them, but not for everybody else! That's like me saying you're responsible if you drive your car into mine, but I'm indemnified if I do the same to you. I agree, that doesn't make any sense at all!
While the corporations and the people who benefit from them the most have done well, average people haven't. Did you know that corporate executive pay has increased at a rate ten times that of the average worker since the early 1980's? We've taken away so many rules that corporations are destroying and littering all over our economy for profit, like barracudas in a public pool.
The most ironic part of it all is that corporations actually operate the best when they operate in a framework that protects consumers, employees, the environment and everything else too. It increases efficiency, builds trust, and provides for economic stability. These factors are the keys to sustained conomic growth, a pattern that hepls everybody win.
To ensure sustained growth, we need to restore the balance of rules constraining corporations so they remember to drive on the right side of the road and throw away their trash again. In order to do that, we need a major paradigm shift in our politics. Corporations don't vote for a reason... government is not supposed to represent them! Government represents the people and needs to protect the people from self-interested corporations. This means removing corporate money from politics and retooling government regulations and regulatory bodies to keep corporations from ruining everything.
Now that doesn't mean stifling corporations by putting up rules just for the sake of putting up rules. But the metronome is certainly not pointing in that direction at the moment, and we need some momentum behind smart regulatory policies a lot more than we need to free corporations up to cause more trouble.
What's that? Sorry, I didn't realize you had fallen asleep. I guess that did go longer than I expected.
Please comment if you're still reading. I'd love to hear what you think!
Eruditely,
The Conscientious Observer
"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini
Friday, January 2, 2009
Hello!
(Echo... Echo...)
Nice to know folks are listening!
If I had any viewers this summer (which I didn't), I'm sure not posting for six months would have scared them away. Well, here's to a new year and new beginnings...
I'd like to point out an interesting tidbit I read today. Chief Justice John Roberts has declared that Congress has given itself cost of living pay raises while neglecting to do the same for federal judges. These judges, of course, are truly being passed over when it comes to federal pay; their meager compensation (which ranges from about $170,000 to almost $220,000) has apparently been forcing our federal judges to scrimp and save in order to keep their house(s) and such.
But I've got a real question... why are we giving Congress OR federal judges a raise in a recession? I mean, in order to support giving raises, ergo, to support increased federal spending, responsible government would have to raise taxes, and a responsible government doesn't raise taxes in a recession! And a responsible government doesn't give a raise to the people who have already helped to carve an unprecedented budget deficit and accompanying national debt.
Debt Check: Now over $10.5 trillion dollars, or over $34,000 per American.
America has steadily drunk itself stupid in the party that was the 2000's. WHOOO!!! Irresponsible government spending! Tax breaks for the wealthy! Deregulation of the finance and housing markets!
Now we have a hangover. And the government is trying to save the biggest partiers, most of whom are not going to be losing their houses or retirements (for shame...)
The truth is, America forgot the thrift and saving that our Greatest Generation possessed, the discipline that catapulted America to its elite place as sole superpower. From the Baby Boomers on Americans have become petulant, entitled brats. Thanks a lot!
The country seemed to be waiting on the Christmas retail season to save the economy. However, we didn't build our economy on retail in the post War era and it isn't retail that will do it for us now. Saving, safe investment, and patience build an economy. We can take a lesson from the Chinese peasants that have been driving China's phenomenal rate of growth for the past generation. These industrious laborers save, on average 1/3 to 1/2 of their annual earnings.
Imagine what would happen to our economy if our banks had that kind of capital to work with? If Americans were capable of saving.
Evening,
The Conscientious Observer
He who does not economize will have to agonize. ~Confucius
(Echo... Echo...)
Nice to know folks are listening!
If I had any viewers this summer (which I didn't), I'm sure not posting for six months would have scared them away. Well, here's to a new year and new beginnings...
I'd like to point out an interesting tidbit I read today. Chief Justice John Roberts has declared that Congress has given itself cost of living pay raises while neglecting to do the same for federal judges. These judges, of course, are truly being passed over when it comes to federal pay; their meager compensation (which ranges from about $170,000 to almost $220,000) has apparently been forcing our federal judges to scrimp and save in order to keep their house(s) and such.
But I've got a real question... why are we giving Congress OR federal judges a raise in a recession? I mean, in order to support giving raises, ergo, to support increased federal spending, responsible government would have to raise taxes, and a responsible government doesn't raise taxes in a recession! And a responsible government doesn't give a raise to the people who have already helped to carve an unprecedented budget deficit and accompanying national debt.
Debt Check: Now over $10.5 trillion dollars, or over $34,000 per American.
America has steadily drunk itself stupid in the party that was the 2000's. WHOOO!!! Irresponsible government spending! Tax breaks for the wealthy! Deregulation of the finance and housing markets!
Now we have a hangover. And the government is trying to save the biggest partiers, most of whom are not going to be losing their houses or retirements (for shame...)
The truth is, America forgot the thrift and saving that our Greatest Generation possessed, the discipline that catapulted America to its elite place as sole superpower. From the Baby Boomers on Americans have become petulant, entitled brats. Thanks a lot!
The country seemed to be waiting on the Christmas retail season to save the economy. However, we didn't build our economy on retail in the post War era and it isn't retail that will do it for us now. Saving, safe investment, and patience build an economy. We can take a lesson from the Chinese peasants that have been driving China's phenomenal rate of growth for the past generation. These industrious laborers save, on average 1/3 to 1/2 of their annual earnings.
Imagine what would happen to our economy if our banks had that kind of capital to work with? If Americans were capable of saving.
Evening,
The Conscientious Observer
He who does not economize will have to agonize. ~Confucius
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)