Frontline Documentary: America's Great Divide

As the partisan hate and distrust publicly boil over in the Senate impeachment trial, it is worth considering some recent history to get a feel for why and how we got here. Where we are now is a place where inconvenient facts, truths and logic are lies for probably most conservatives and populists. Worse, that is where essentially all elected GOP politicians now stand.

The right and conservatism believed it face an existential threat with the election of Obama. Obama crystallized the hate, fear, and anger that had been building among many Americans for decades.

The left is divided and fragmented, but at least most of them, most of the time will still grudgingly accept inconvenient facts, truths and logic to some non-trivial extent. Those days may be coming to an end. Social partisan anger is rising and I feel it myself sometimes even though I don't have a left or right 'side' in this war. If full-blown reason and reality detachment happens on the left, it is easy to imagine the American experiment ending in some form of corrupt, bigoted authoritarian Christian theocracy, probably preceded by a period of social violence.

The basis for civil, rational discourse is basically gone. Essentially all cross-party trust is gone. The two Frontline documentaries are well worth the four hours. They remind us of why and how we got into this sad, dangerous mess.

For myself, I see a longer timeline than Frontline covers. Mine dates back to at least the 2nd Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision in 1955. In essence, that decision said to the states, desegregate public schools as soon as you can. The nationwide conservative backlash against that has never fully gone away, but it has morphed and additional complaints are swept in, e.g., illegal immigration, rising secularism, etc.

So, if you have some time, these two are well worth it.






My thanks to Susan, the primal one, for bringing these outstanding documentaries to my attention. 😊

Capitalism's Moral Crisis?

Caviar on toast points

The Washington Post writes on the current meeting in Davos Switzerland of billionaires, oligarchs, kleptocrats and other titans of business and commerce, e.g., some of the best people the president works with who are not in jail or under indictment. Even the president will pop in today for a quick whatever he wants to do there. The WaPo notes that this year's meeting seems to have an unusual concern attached to it -- the morality of capitalism is under scrutiny. Past Davos soirees and caviar on toast points have been celebrations of, as WaPo puts it, “an almost Promethean belief in the virtues of liberalism and globalization, anchored in a conviction that heads of companies can become capable and even moral custodians of the common good.”

Wait, what? Moral custodians of the common good??? Something is definitely seriously amiss in Davos this year. WaPo writes:

“Financial crises, surging nationalist populism in the West, China’s intensifying authoritarianism and the steady toll of climate change have convinced many that there’s nothing inexorable about liberal progress. A new global opinion poll of tens of thousands of people found that more than 50 percent of those surveyed now think capitalism does “more harm than good.” 

Klaus Schwab, the forum’s octogenarian founder and executive chairman, is convinced that the current moment needs more Davos, not less. In the run-up to this week’s meetings, he announced a new “Davos manifesto,” calling on companies to “pay their fair share of taxes, show zero tolerance for corruption, uphold human rights throughout their global supply chains, and advocate for a competitive level playing field.” Such an ethos, Schwab contends, will go a long way to redressing the world’s inequities and may help governments meet the climate targets set by the 2015 Paris agreement. 

“Business leaders now have an incredible opportunity,” Schwab wrote in a column published last month. “By giving stakeholder capitalism concrete meaning, they can move beyond their legal obligations and uphold their duty to society. 

In a study timed in conjunction with the World Economic Forum, Oxfam found the world’s billionaires control more wealth than 4.6 billion people, or 60 percent of humanity. “Another year, another indication that the inequality crisis is spiraling out of control. And despite repeated warnings about inequality, governments have not reversed its course,” said Paul O’Brien of Oxfam America in an emailed statement. ‘Some governments, especially the U.S., are actually exacerbating inequality by cutting taxes for the richest and for corporations while slashing public services and safety nets — such as health care and education — that actually fight inequality.’”

The morality of business seems to be a concern that is slowly creeping into the minds of at least some business people. A few months ago, some CEOs in the Business Roundtable group signed a non-binding statement of corporate principles[1] that at least paid lip service to concerns other than profit, e.g., concern for employees and customers, whatever that means. It was aspirational and vague, but it was at least something. Sort of. Maybe.

Anyway, something seems to be amiss in the stronghold of capitalism and amoral market thinking. Whether the unsease will translate into something significantly different remains unknowable. But if past performance is any predictor future activities, not much is going to change. Companies will continue to lobby to not pay taxes. They will continue to lobby to privatize and trickle profits up to owners, while socializing costs, risks and human and environmental damage. And, in terms of moral politics, Facebook will probably continue to resist calls to shut down politicians who use Facebook to lie to and deceive the public. Facebook asserts lying to the public is good because it is based “on the principle that people should be able to hear from those who wish to lead them, warts and all, and that what they say should be scrutinized and debated in public.”

Actually the principle that demands lies to be allowed is profit, i.e., if Facebook shuts lying politicians down as they spread their hate and poison, Facebook might get regulated. Or far worse, taxed. As the Business Roundtable folks say, their core principles still includes generating long-term value for shareholders. Therein lies the real, enduring corporate moral value -- money talks and everything else walks.



Footnote:
1. Here’s the core of the Business Roundtable corporate purpose statement:
“While each of our individual companies serves its own corporate purpose, we share a fundamental commitment to all of our stakeholders. We commit to:

•  Delivering value to our customers. We will further the tradition of American companies leading the way in meeting or exceeding customer expectations. 
• Investing in our employees. This starts with compensating them fairly and providing important benefits. It also includes supporting them through training and education that help develop new skills for a rapidly changing world. We foster diversity and inclusion, dignity and respect. 
• Dealing fairly and ethically with our suppliers. We are dedicated to serving as good partners to the other companies, large and small, that help us meet our missions. 
• Supporting the communities in which we work. We respect the people in our communities and protect the environment by embracing sustainable practices across our businesses. 
• Generating long-term value for shareholders, who provide the capital that allows companies to invest, grow and innovate. We are committed to transparency and effective engagement with shareholders.

The last point is probably something that will remain the top priority. 

Is Donald Trump the Anti-Christ? What do the Prophets and Bible Codes Say?

A VERY LONG READ!

Is Donald J. Trump the Beast of Revelation? Why does the number 666 keep turning up ― over and over again ― where Trump and his family are concerned, as documented extensively on this page? 

http://www.thehypertexts.com/donald%20trump%20666%20mark%20of%20the%20beast.htm



Donald John Trump's real name in German is Donald Johann Drumpf and each name has six letters = 666.



Another Trump Fifth Avenue property, the famous Trump Tower, is 203 meters tall according to multiple reports. And 203 meters = 666 feet

MUCH MUCH MORE - ACTUALLY WORTH YOUR TIME TO PERUSE:
http://www.thehypertexts.com/Donald%20Trump%20666%20Mark%20of%20the%20Beast.htm

The Angola Papers: The Morality of Markets

The New York Times reports on how Western expertise helps a powerful African kleptocrat, Isabel dos Santos, launder and make money. She parties with celebrities who are either clueless or don't care about morals.

Wheee!! I’m partying!!
From left, Chris Tucker, Nicole Scherzinger, Isabel dos Santos, 
Paris Hilton and Chris Zylka (2018)

The NYT writes:

“Posing for photos at [a] May 2017 not the one above, that was a different party] event was Isabel dos Santos, Africa’s richest woman and the daughter of José Eduardo dos Santos, then Angola’s president. Her husband controls the jeweler, De Grisogono, through a dizzying array of shell companies in Luxembourg, Malta and the Netherlands. 

But the lavish party was possible only because of the Angolan government. The country is rich in oil and diamonds but hobbled by corruption, with grinding poverty, widespread illiteracy and a high infant mortality rate. A state agency had sunk more than $120 million into the jewelry company. Today, it faces a total loss. 

Ms. dos Santos, estimated to be worth over $2 billion, claims she is a self-made woman who never benefited from state funds. But a different picture has emerged under media scrutiny in recent years: She took a cut of Angola’s wealth, often through decrees signed by her father. She acquired stakes in the country’s diamond exports, its dominant mobile phone company, two of its banks and its biggest cement maker, and partnered with the state oil giant to buy into Portugal’s largest petroleum company. 

Now, a trove of more than 700,000 documents obtained by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, and shared with The New York Times, shows how a global network of consultants, lawyers, bankers and accountants helped her amass that fortune and park it abroad. Some of the world’s leading professional service firms — including the Boston Consulting Group, McKinsey & Company and PwC — facilitated her efforts to profit from her country’s wealth while lending their legitimacy. 

PricewaterhouseCoopers, now called PwC, acted as her accountant, consultant and tax adviser, working with at least 20 companies controlled by her or her husband. Yet there were obvious red flags as Angolan state money went unaccounted for, according to money-laundering experts and forensic accountants who reviewed the newly obtained documents.”

The morality of markets and money

The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) has once again got its fake news hands on a pile of evidence of how corrupt many (most?) rich people are. Morals and human decency are simply irrelevant to these people. Among other shiny objects of evil, the ICIJ has brought us the Paradise Papers and the Panama Papers. The latter included leaked documents showing a little sliver of Vladimir Putin’s staggering corruption and that of dozens of other rich people hiding assets and corruption in anonymous offshore accounts. The ICIJ has exposed trillions in global theft among rich pillars of the community and playthings for clueless or immoral celebrities. Now we have the Angola papers. Same corrupt story, same human misery, different country, different kleptocrats.

The moral lesson is obvious and simple: The markets and their employees do not care about corruption. They care about making money. Period.

So, when Michael Sandel writes about the moral limits of markets and profits, this exemplifies how limitless but mainstream market immorality really is.

One can only wonder if Ms. dos Santos will sue the failing, fake news NYT and/or ICIJ for defamation. We all hope the backlash doesn't go any farther than that.

 Isabel dos Santos, the face of . . . . what?

Wikipedia’s dead journalist list

Book Review: What Money Can't Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets

Michael Sandel

Michael Sandel’s 2012 book, What Money Can't Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets, argues that moral considerations should keep some things from becoming bought and sold on markets. Sandel, a political philosopher and Professor of Government at Harvard, argues that market values often affect or even significantly control our lives. Market values can change or corrupt our perceptions of the things that can be bought and sold. Market values are basically an agreed-on trade, the profit motive and/or utilitarian value to people and society. Some prominent economists have argued that businesses that allow social conscience or values other than market values to impair profit are immoral.

Economists and pro-market advocates argue that market values are neutral and do not affect people or society. Sandel disagrees:

“We live in a time when almost anything can be bought and sold. Markets have come to govern our lives as never before. But are there some things that money should not be able to buy? Most people would say yes. .... Part of the appeal of markets is that they don’t pass judgment on the preferences they satisfy. They don’t ask if some ways of valuing goods are higher, or worthier, than others. .... Markets don’t wag fingers. They don’t discriminate between admirable preferences and base ones. .... The more markets extend their reach into noneconomic spheres of life, the more they become entangled with moral questions. .... As markets reach into spheres of life traditionally governed by nonmarket norms, the notion that markets don’t touch or taint the goods they exchange becomes increasingly implausible. .... Many economists now recognize that markets change the character of the goods and social practices they govern.”

Market assumptions aren’t always true

Many economists argue that (1) markets are the best way to efficiently allocate goods without adverse personal or social effects, and (2) monetary incentives are additive with other sources of motivation such as personal morality or a sense of civic duty. In addition, they believe that market-based policies that rely on self-interest instead of relying on non-market altruism or other moral concerns preserves an allegedly scarce supply of personal and social virtue.

The prominent economist Lawrence Summers argued the scarce virtue argument like this: “We all have only so much altruism in us. Economists like me think of altruism as a valuable and rare good that needs conserving. Far better to conserve it by designing a system in which people’s wants will be satisfied by individuals being selfish, and saving that altruism for our families, our friends and the many social problems in this world that markets cannot solve.”

One can say that market advocates like Summers at least concede that markets cannot solve all problems. Some economists argue that markets can solve all problems, under the theory that all human activity is focused on maximizing the actor’s economic welfare. Sandel points out that although the scarce virtue theory is dominant among economists, empirical evidence mostly contradicts it. Instead of being scarce and limited, virtue is more like a muscle that needs exercise to grow and maintain. There is not a fixed amount of virtue that just runs out. Instead, empirical evidence suggests that virtue and civic spirit languish with disuse under markets. One experiment found that paying people to do a public service gets a smaller response than when the same people are asked to do it for no payment other than the satisfaction in service to the public interest.

One prominent research economist called the phenomenon of market intrusion into non-market activities the commercialization effect. Research shows that introducing market incentives and mechanisms to social and political activities tends to crowd non-market values right out of the picture. Wth market morality in place, people see and value the marketized activities differently. Some previously unpaid virtuous activities are reduced when monetary incentives are added to the mix. Commitment to the common good can be devalued to the detriment of society.

Corruption and fairness

A common pro-market argument holds that willing adults consent to enter into market transactions on an equal footing and they deserve unfettered freedom to do that in the name of freedom. In the real world, there is usually both resource and information inequality in consumer and other transactions. Poor people often have little choice but to pay higher prices than others for various reasons including lack of transportation to reach less expensive sellers. Sellers often have far more information about the market than average consumers, making them able to leverage that knowledge into higher profit that more knowledgeable buyers would accept. The market’s answer to that is caveat emptor, i.e., tough, get over it. Fairness is not a market value. The argued market value is equality and neutrality, which can both be mirages.

A different criticism of market values is that they can lead to corruption, instead of allegedly being neutral as most market advocates assert. In the case of prostitution, women can willingly enter the business, but that tends to foster bad or corrupt attitudes toward women and laws where it is illegal. In the case of access to public institutions such as congress, access could be sold to the public and that would generate as much as the market would bear. People without enough money would be excluded. Most Americans would probably consider that corrupt because it looks and is corrupt.

Sandel does not touch on some issues that have become of much higher public importance since he wrote in 2012. One is the what the values of our market-based pay-to-play system of politics has done to both political and social morality. Another is the question of how the demand for profit from broadcast and cable news has tainted or corrupted what the American people now see.

In general, Sandel makes a strong case that markets and their morals have reached into areas of life that they do not belong, at least not without a decent public debate.

Cuss words can be so sexist, I swear

The etymology of many of the swear words that remain in vogue today reveals their patriarchal origins — a time when sexuality was amoral and misogyny was condoned. Their continued use simply reinforces the puritanical values that birthed them, robbing you of the right to curse meaningfully in today’s world.

For years now I have been looking to enrich my vocabulary of swear words, but I want no troublesome arrows in my quiver. There are times when I urgently need to use profanity — for example, against all the harassers on bikes and in cars who would hoot at or brush past me, literally giving me a run for my money. I must have the last word, if not the last hand, in the situation and need to yell something out at these harassers. I become frustrated if the limited choice of words in my outdated assortment ends up actually reinforcing the other party’s value system instead of taking them down.

Here, I'm using the term “swear word” to refer to abuse, words that are audibly directed at the offending party and not just to be muttered under one's breath as a private form of venting.

Let's do some stocktaking.

We have mother******, sister******, son of a b**** (hereinafter referred to as MF/SF and SOB) as well as bastard and several more complex variations of the same, as deployed for instance by Scorsese. (I do not know if I am missing significant, powerful pelt-stones in English but, in Hindi, my first language, we do not have a very wide range). Now to use MF/SF would suggest I have resigned myself to believing that men would be the eternal doers and women, the “done-upons”. The broader connotation is that if some men are not MFs or SFs it is because of their kindness and the goodness of their hearts, though they could (denoting a natural ability) fill those roles if they so wished, because women of course will never have any choice in the matter. As Germaine Greer writes in The Female Eunuch, “All the verbal linguistic emphasis is placed upon the poking element; f***ing, screwing, rooting, shagging are all acts performed upon the passive female...”

And not on my life am I going to rob women of agency.

SOB is again supposed to be offensive to women though there can be ample speculation on what kind of dark legends were unearthed around b****es to put them in this category and represent them as worse than human. A word like asshole circles back, again, to the body. Why is a body part supposed to cause offence? The only insult it causes is to Rabelais’s scatological oeuvre, which his narratives used in the most imaginative ways. Even if it’s a child's idea of grossing out someone, my use of it must not just make the other person feel bad but also tell them how exactly they were abominable.

Some suggest that women should use the “male equivalent” of misogynist terms for men. Many expressions of profanity have already become unisex in their use. In Holy Sh*t: A Brief History of Swearing, Melissa Mohr tells us, “With the development of feminism, many swearwords have become more equal-opportunity, not less. B**** can now be applied to men and women. In the 19th Century, shit as a noun was reserved exclusively for men — The West Somerset Word-Book defines it as “‘a term of contempt, applied to men only’, as in ‘He’s a regular shit.’ Now, women too can work, vote, own their own property, and be called a shit”.

But what am I really gaining by calling someone a father****** or brother******? And using these terms now in a gender-neutral way certainly doesn’t alter their sexist history. Even if a woman is saying “Don't be a girl” to another woman or to a man, this is still a reductionist approach wherein the notion that femininity is an unfortunate quality to have remains frozen throughout time.

While the above-mentioned expletives are offensive to women, others do not stray far from sex and its consequences. A bastard, for instance, brings to mind the “illegitimacy” of a childbirth out of wedlock, a moral policing relic from the dark ages. Restoration drama, on the other hand, was busy wishing all sorts of sexual maladies upon its characters. One option is to continue with the old terms and simply use them to vent, without their carrying any of its semantic meaning at all. But in this way we are merely apprising the other person of our anger and not really telling them why we are angry in terms that carry any allegorical weight. So, they are left free to attribute it merely to our “feeling” rather than their “doing” and, alas, the purpose of swearing would be lost. (I myself have had to bite my tongue several times before calling out one of these very names.)

The strictest condemnatory words should be derivatives of qualities that are antithetical to our most cherished human values. And those who commit acts of hatred, violence and malice could then receive, through this new terminology, the harshest castigation.

For all of our forward thinking, the damned spots of regression continue to show. We still shudder to think of the “sins” of the flesh and therefore think the worst ills of the world have to do with sex and the body. Surely it is not a bigger “sin” to be born a bastard than to be communal, cruel or dishonest. Yet these words are mere adjectives, not “swear words”. Our palette of terms of abuse is a reflection of ourselves, of what we consider acceptable and what we let pass. Even if we are able to invest these words with a stronger meaning, the shadow of their sexist etymology would continue to loom large above them.

If we are truly committed to equality, now is our chance to build a novel, gender-neutral vocabulary of profanity. The contemporary swear words make sexism common currency, and putting an end to their use would also mean pushing casual sexism back. Of course, people cannot be made to swear off swearing itself, and it definitely seems to be a safer form of venting out than other acts of physical aggression. But if 5,400 words are created every year, as Global Language Monitor informs us, why cannot there be more innovative cusswords?

Authors, orators, screenplay writers, all such creatives have the power to influence culture through the media they work in. It is common for some words uttered by a popular political candidate to trend on Twitter every now and then. Films that catch people’s imagination leave similar trails. Scribes since the time of Shakespeare have been in the very business of coinage. Not to forget those who have been setting trends since the beginning of time — young people. When I joined college, a mainstream newspaper actually published a list of colloquial words that were in vogue in the university and I eagerly updated myself because I did not wish to fall behind. All these groups of people could set their hearts (and minds) on demolishing the problematic worn-out lexicon of sexual, sexist censure. The strictest condemnatory words should be derivatives of qualities that are antithetical to our most cherished human values. And those who commit acts of hatred, violence and malice could then receive, through this new terminology, the harshest castigation.

by Ankita Anand

https://www.thehindu.com/thread/reflections/cuss-words-can-be-so-sexist-i-swear/article28773006.ece

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dd7dQh8u4Hc&feature=youtu.be