Saturday, May 30, 2015

May 31 2015. I went to university far too you—I was 16—but it was still a particularly significant part of my life and I have always been glad I went where I did. All that history provides role models a-plenty.

STRANGE TO SEE MY OLD UNIVERSITY, TRINITY COLLEGE, DUBLIN (FOUNDED BY ELIZABETH I) AS IT WAS C.1900 WHEN THE BRITISH STILL OCCUPIED IRELAND

College green dublin

STRANGER STILL TO SEE MEMBERS OF THE BRITISH BRIGADE OF GUARDS—IN FULL UNIFORM COMPLETE WITH BEARSKINS—IN THE FOREGROUND.

It takes a long time to get over being an occupied country. Ireland was first invaded by the British towards the end of the twelfth century—and did not succeed in driving them out until the early twentieth. That’s a long time to be occupied.

It then took a further three generations for Ireland to find its economic feet—and only a couple of decades before stumbling again.

As matters stand, Ireland appears to be recovering (I’ve had mixed reports). There are lies, damned lies, government statistics—and how people really live.

I guess I’ll have to find out for myself.


(#238-1) May 30 2015. It’s always a good idea to look at alternative ways of doing things—and particularly to look overseas. After all, we are competing with these guys—and, all too often—they are winning. Do they know something we don’t know?

IS THE AMERICAN BUSINESS MODEL THE ONLY WAYVICTOR - SHOT BY MICK - WEBSITE 1

OR ARE THERE ALTERNATIVES?

ACTUALLY, THERE ARE—AND THEY ARE WORTH KNOWING ABOUT

The following is from that excellent website, http://toomuchonline.org/which illustrates quite how distorted the American Business Model has become.

A Manufacturer of Equality

JUNE 1, 2015 ⋅

In the United States, top corporate execs sometimes make more in an hour than their workers can make in a year. At Mondragon, one of Spain’s largest companies, no execs can make more in an hour than their workers make in a day.

No executives at the cooperatives that make up the Mondragon network, notes Mondragon International president Josu Ugarte, make more than six times the workers they manage.

At the Mondragon network, notes the cooperative’s international president Josu Ugarte, “we want to transform our society.”

Sky-high corporate CEO pay, the Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz notes in a new report, “creates social norms” that drive up levels of inequality far beyond corporate payrolls.

Those “social norms,” cheerleaders for our current corporate order insist, simply reflect economic reality. In a globalized world where corporations tally sales and profits in the many billions, their argument goes, no modern major business could possibly survive — let alone thrive — without shelling out top executive pay that stretches into the many millions.

The owners of one of the largest businesses in Spain would beg to disagree.

Their nearly 60-year-old enterprise — named Mondragon for the Basque town in northern Spain that gave it birth — has nearly 75,000 employees working in everything from heavy industry and retail to banking and education. A big-league business, in other words, by any metric.

Yet Mondragon doesn’t shell out millions to any of its top executives. No executive at Mondragon makes anything close to even a single million.

How could that be? Mondragon just happens to operate as a cooperative and may be, many analysts believe, the world’s most significant worker-owned business.

Josu Ugarte, the president of Mondragon International, spent a chunk of last month touring the United States, as part of the co-op’s ongoing outreach to people and groups looking for alternatives to corporate business as usual. What alternative for corporate compensation does Mondragon offer? Too Much editor Sam Pizzigati caught up with Ugarte in Washington, D.C. and explored that question with him.

Too Much: How long have you been with Mondragon?

Josu Ugarte: I’ve worked at Mondragon for 27 years ago, and I’ve been the president of Mondragon International, our global operation, for seven years.

No manager within a Mondragon co-op can make over six times the pay any worker in the co-op makes.

Too Much: How are manager-worker pay differentials determined within the various Mondragon cooperative enterprises?

Ugarte: We have limits in all our co-ops. No manager within any co-op can make more than six times the salary of any worker in the co-op.

We have another limit between co-ops, with the maximum difference between one co-op’s compensation and another’s at 38 percent.

Too Much: So the top executive at one Mondragon enterprise cannot make more than 38 percent more than the top executive at another coop?

Ugarte: Yes, the maximum difference could be 38 percent. But the maximum pay differential inside any individual co-op can be no more than one to six.

Too Much: The lowest-paid Mondragon associate in Spain is making about what?

Ugarte: About 28,000 euros [$32,000].

Too Much: Why do you all in Mondragon pay attention to the gap between top and bottom compensation?

Ugarte: Because at Mondragon we are the owners. Every associate is an owner of the company, and we consider a maximum acceptable pay difference one of our solidarity tools.

Mondragon considers its modest CEO-worker pay gap a tool for solidarity.

Too Much: And why is solidarity important? Here in the United States, no executives at General Motors or Microsoft would say that their enterprises value solidarity. Why does solidarity matter to you?

Ugarte: We are a cooperative. We are different. For us, people are our most important asset.

One of our most important newspapers in Spain, El Pais, just calculated the CEO-worker pay differential at the Spanish corporations listed in the IBEX 35, our stock market index. The difference between the highest and the lowest pay at these Spanish corporations averages 105 times. In our case, just six times.

Too Much: The latest figures place the differential at top U.S. companies at 374 to one.

Ugarte: Yes, enormous differences.

Too Much: So where do your executives come from? Are they people who come to their executive position from outside the Mondragon network or are they mostly people who come up through the Mondragon ranks?

Ugarte: Inside Mondragon, we give a lot of training for our people, and, unlike other companies, our hierarchical structure is very flat. We also keep information within Mondragon very transparent. All associates can access basic financial information about the company — because we are the owners.

In this environment, we get all our executives from inside. We promote from within. We have more than 100 Mondragon cooperative companies and over 240 associated entities, so we have a lot of opportunities in different companies to promote.

Too Much: People will go from one Mondragon enterprise to another?

Ugarte: We have many people moving inside Mondragon. I’ve moved between different companies. This helps managers at Mondragon understand our different sectors, from automotive and capital goods to construction and services and so on.

Within Mondragon, executives come from inside.

Too Much: Defenders of the current corporate order in the United States like to claim that you can’t effectively run a major modern business enterprise without paying top executives great gobs of compensation. At Mondragon, you clearly disagree.

Ugarte: We are not losing out for managerial talent because of our pay limits. For us, it is difficult to understand huge pay differences.

We had a Spanish basketball player in Madrid who went to the United States to play for the Portland Trailblazers. He actually lost money making the move. Es lo mismo, he explained, it’s all the same. To have lots of money and to have lots and lots of money, it’s all the same.

So the question is how much is enough? And this question becomes very locally relative, especially when you feel that the values and the solidarity of your organization give you a kind of wealth that doesn’t express itself in money.

Too Much: What sort of wealth?

Ugarte: We want to transform our society. We want to have a more equal society.

Researchers have a measure for inequality, the Gini Index. The higher the value between 0 and 1, the more unequal the society. The USA’s Gini sits around 0.5. Norway, the most equal society by the Gini Index, is at 0.22. Here in the Basque country, the base of Mondragon, we are at 0.24. So we are near the best society in terms of equality, and for us that is really important.

The home region of the Mondragon network ranks as one of the most equal locales in the world.

Too Much: Mondragon operates within a globalized world economy. What would happen if executives within Mondragon started arguing that your enterprise could no longer be globally competitive with a one-to-six pay gap?

Ugarte: To modify the gap would take a vote in the General Assembly, our cooperative’s congress. So it would not be easy to have the congress of Mondragon approving this kind of modification. This is an important issue. To make any change would require one and a half to two years of discussion.

But we think we are already globally competitive. We are following what we call a “multilocalization” strategy. We don’t “delocalize.” To delocalize is to take an asset from one country to another country, destroying employment in the origin country. We are not doing that.

We do invest abroad, especially in emerging markets. We have, for example, 18 factories in China. We have 122 factories abroad. Our companies that invest abroad, they increase their sales, they add value and employment at home.

We have compared our companies that invest abroad with the companies that stayed in the Basque country. Our multilocalized companies increased all their figures, and the companies that did not multilocalize lost employment at home. So we invite our companies to invest abroad in order to protect employment at home.

Too Much: In the factories that you run abroad, how do you handle compensation?

Ugarte: For the worker salaries, we pay higher than the local society norm. We always pay higher than the prevailing wage. And we offer for our companies abroad the possibility of organizing as a cooperative, but they haven’t wanted to choose that option yet.

Too Much: They don’t want cooperative status?

In hard times, all employees at Mondragon, including execs, sacrifice.

Ugarte: No, I think because to become a cooperativist, you need to make some tough decisions in tough times that may involve cutting the salaries or increasing the hours of fellow workers, including your own, when times demand it.

In the co-ops of Mondragon, if we are losing money, we decrease our salaries, our anticipation of results.

Too Much: And the salaries are reduced by your one to six ratio?

Ugarte: Yes, we always maintain this ratio.

Too Much: So if there is sacrifice, people at the top make sacrifices as well?

Ugarte: Yes, we want to be in for the long-term. We are all owners. As cooperativists, we all have capital, equity, in our company. This equity starts now with 15,000 euros we each put into the company to become an associate. The company allows you to pay this 15,000 over 24 months, taking out a little bit from each salary paycheck.

This equity grows over time, as our enterprises within Mondragon have profits. So we have, in effect, three kinds of income at Mondragon: our salaries, the growth in our equity in the company, and the interest Mondragon pays on that equity.

Too Much: When you look ahead five or ten years, where do you hope Mondragon will be? What do you hope to accomplish over that period?

sub-promo-interviewUgarte: I imagine Mondragon will be more international. I see Mondragon in a new complexity, where we’re trying to integrate people that we have abroad into our cooperative philosophy. That’s quite complicated because every culture is completely different.

But I think that all people want to participate. People want to have a lot of information about their company, about their future. So when we are going abroad, we bring with us our management model. When we are able to get that adopted universally, I think we will be stronger in the world and stronger at home.

Interested in more information about Mondragon? The co-op maintains a helpful English-language online presence full of useful background information.

Sam Pizzigati edits Too Much, the Institute for Policy Studies online monthly on excess and inequality. His latest book: The Rich Don’t Always Win: The Forgotten Triumph over Plutocracy that Created the American Middle Class (Seven Stories Press).

- See more at: http://toomuchonline.org/this-business-manufactures-equality/#sthash.eqOcnPcR.dpuf


Friday, May 29, 2015

(#237-1) May 29 2015. What kind of America do Americans want? A money-driven, crony-driven, propaganda-driven, militarized, corporatized, polarized, privacy-free, big data dominated, socially controlled oppressive model is fast emerging—even while America grows more socially liberal.

I GREW UP WITH MOSTLY UNARMED, STRICTLY CIVILIAN, POLICE FORCES IN THE UK AND IRELAND

VICTOR - SHOT BY MICK - WEBSITE 1

THIS LEVEL OF POLICE SHOOTINGS STRIKES ME AS DISTURBING—BUT I APPRECIATE MY ATTITUDES ARE EUROPEAN.

MORE WORRYING IS THE DEGREE TO WHICH POLICE SHOOTINGS ARE INADEQUATELY INVESTIGATED. THE POLICE CANNOT, ADEQUATELY, INVESTIGATE THEMSELVES.

A SURVEILLANCE STATE + MILITARIZED POLICE + THE HIGHEST RARE OF INCARCERATION IN THE WORLD + DAILY KILLINGS DAY BY POLICE—DOES NOT A DEMOCRACY MAKE. BUT IT IS FINE FOR A PLUTOCRACY (the current system)


Thursday, May 28, 2015

(#236-1) May 28 2015. One of the most dangerous places for an American to be is in an American hospital. And they also kill you financially.

DOES THE MEDICAL PROFESSION KNOW WHAT IT IS DOING?

VICTOR - SHOT BY MICK - WEBSITE 1

MOST MEDICAL ADVICE IS NOT EVIDENCE BASED

MANY RESEARCH STUDIES ARE CARRIED OUT BY BIG PHARMA—AND ARE BIASED ACCORDINGLY

FEW DRUGS—LEGAL OR OTHERWISE—ARE TESTED IN COMBINATION

The following is from www.mercola.com

Beta-Blockers Killed 800,000 in 5 Years—“Good Medicine” or Mass Murder?

"Last summer, British researchers provoked concern when they published a paper raising the possibility that by following an established guideline UK doctors may have caused as many as 10,000 deaths each year,2"Larry Husten, editorial director of WebMD professional news, writes.

"Now, they have gone a step further and published an estimate that the same guideline may have led to the deaths of as many as 800,000 people in Europe over the last five years3...

The 800,000 deaths are comparable in size to the worst cases of genocide and mass murder in recent history."


Wednesday, May 27, 2015

#(235-1) May 27 2015. It is time to overhaul the constitution—but don’t hold your breath.

I WRITE REGULARLY THAT THE AMERICAN BUSINESS MODEL IS SERIOUSLY STRUCTURALLY FLAWED (IF IT WAS A HOUSE YOU WOULD HAVE TO EVACUATE IT UNTIL IT WAS FIXED)

VICTOR - SHOT BY MICK - WEBSITE 1

SHEER GREED APART, THE ROOT CAUSE OF THIS IS THAT THE U.S. POLITICAL SYSTEM HAS BEEN HIJACKED. WELL, TO BE MORE PRECISE, IT HAS BEEN BOUGHT.

HERE IS MORE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THAT STATEMENT

The following is from http://www.upworthy.com/20-years-of-data-reveals-that-congress-doesnt-care-what-you-think

It confirms that the U.S. is no longer a working representative democracy. That comes as a shock to some people.

It really shouldn’t. It is painfully and blindingly obvious.

Professors Martin Gilens of Princeton University and Benjamin Page of Northwestern University looked at more than 20 years of data to answer a pretty simple question: Does the government represent the people?

Your opinion literally does not matter...

Their study took data from nearly 2,000 public-opinion surveys and compared what the people wanted to what the government actually did. What they found was extremely unsettling: The opinions of the bottom 90% of income earners in America has essentially no impact at all.

Put another way, and I'll just quote the Princeton study directly here:

“The preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy."

Really think about that for a second.

If you've ever felt like your opinion doesn't matter and that the government doesn't really care what you think, well … you're right.

But, of course, there's a catch.

...unless you're an "economic elite."

If there's one thing that still reliably gets politicians' attention, it's money. While the opinions of the bottom 90% of income earners in America have a "statistically non-significant impact," Gilens and Page found that economic elites, business interests, and people who can afford lobbyists still carry major influence.

How could it be that our government, designed to function as a representative democracy, is only good at representing such a small fraction of the population? Just follow the money.

Why? Because purchasing political influence is 100% legal.

For example: Let's say a big bank wants a law that would force taxpayers to bail them out again if they repeat the exact same reckless behavior that crashed the global economy in 2008.

It's perfectly legal for our bank to hire a team of lobbyists whose entire job is to make sure the government gives the bank what it wants. Then, those lobbyists can track down members of Congress who regulate banks and help raise a ton of money for their re-election campaigns. Its also perfectly legal for those lobbyists to offer those same politicians million-dollar jobs at their lobbying firms.

Rep. Kevin Yoder (R-Kansas), shown speaking at an event in 2012, recently attached language originally drafted by lobbyists for CitiGroup to a financial services appropriations bill. Members of Congress who voted "yes" on the bill received, on average, 2.8 times more money from the PACs of CitiGroup, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, and JPMorgan Chase than members who voted "no." Image by Information Technology Innovation Foundation/Flickr.

They can also literally write the language of this new bailout law themselves, then hand it off to the politicians they just buttered up with campaign money and lucrative job offers. And it's perfectly legal for those politicians to sneak the lobbyist-written language through Congress at the last second.

If that example sounds oddly specific, that's because it happened in December 2014. And it happens all the time, on almost every single issue, with politicians of both parties.

So is our Republic doomed? No.

Here's the good news: Every single practice outlined in this article can be made illegal by a simple statute — no constitutional amendment or overturning of Citizens United required. And there are thousands of people across the country fighting to make it happen right now.

The rebel alliance in action. Tallahassee voters approved the first municipal anti-corruption act in the U.S. by a 2-1 margin on Nov. 4, 2014. Image by Represent.Us.

My day job, for instance, is working with an organization called Represent.Us to pass state and local anti-corruption acts. We're one of many organizations fighting for reform and are working from the marriage equality and marijuana legalization playbook by using local wins to build momentum for national reform (you can learn a little more about the plan right here). It's working, too: The first municipal anti-corruption act in the U.S. has already passed, and more cities and two states are on their way in 2015 and 2016.

Looking for other reform organizations to get involved with? There's also Lawrence Lessig's MayDay PAC, a crowdfunded Super PAC to take down other Super PACs. And there's Take Back Our Republic: a conservative-leaning organization devoted to fighting corruption and cronyism. You could also get involved with EveryVoice. Or Common Cause. Or People for the American Way. Or Stamp Stampede. Or WolfPAC. Or Move to Amend. You've got options.

You can do something about it.

Big money in politics is emerging as a major issue in the 2016 election, and there are now dozens of organizations fighting hard for reform every day. If you're appalled by corruption, there's never been a better time to join the fight to stop it.


Monday, May 25, 2015

(#234-1) May 26 2015. The economy that is booming—but isn’t helping a disturbing number of Americans.

RIDDLE ME THIS! WHY AREN’T MORE AMERICANS CONCERNED ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE AMERICAN BUSINESS MODEL ISN’T DELIVERING FOR THEM?

VICTOR - SHOT BY MICK - WEBSITE 1

A. Because the Stock Market is going up?

A. Because the mainstream media are not covering the issues?

A. Because they haven’t a clue what to do?

A. Because—though it defies credulity—they just haven’t noticed?

There is a great deal of good economic news out there at present—from the sheer scale of current job creation to the seemingly ever rising Stock Market—yet, apart from the fact that the primary beneficiaries continue to be the ultra-rich (and those who serve them) I take the view that the structural flaws in the economy so outweigh such positive developments that the trend lines still indicate economic and political decline.

Most serious of all is the fact that the fundamental flaws in the economy are neither being discussed nor addressed except in a token way.

The American tragedy continues in plain sight.

Consider, for instance, the plight of the young. Since the young are our future, you would think we all might be more concerned. We don’t seem to be. We are facing clear and present economic danger, yet we don’t seem to be reacting.

Fatalism? A sense of helplessness? Ignorance of the implications of economic developments?

Something is seriously adrift. The following is just one example of a whole series of disturbing manifestations of a structurally flawed economy that is not serving most of us well.

Young People's Wages Have Fallen Across Industries Between 2007 and 2013

The Wages of the Youngest Workers (Ages 18-24) Have Fallen, Too

Savings Rates Since 2004, by Age

(#233-1) May 25 2015. I am not particularly courageous, but I have a weakness for adventures.

LEAVING ONE’S COMFORT ZONE IS, BY DEFINITION, UNFOMFORTABLE—AND CAN BE DOWNRIGHT FRIGHTENING

VICTOR - SHOT BY MICK - WEBSITE 1

ARGUABLY, IT IS NOT THE KIND OF THING YOU SHOULD BE DOING AT MY AGE—71.

I HAVE TO TELL YOU—IT’S WORTH IT. WHICH DOESN’T MEAN IT’S EASY.

How long is it going to take to adjust to being back in Europe after 14 years in the U.S.? I don’t know. It’s too early to tell. I’m still in culture shock—though being treated with great kindness. But, I don’t feel ready yet to blog publicly about it.

I’m writing about it, of course, because that’s what I do, but I’m too close to events to write with the kind of authority  and professionalism I aspire to.  This is more introspective therapy—for the moment. But, I’m getting there.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not unhappy with the change—in fact, I’m settling in to my totally new surroundings surprisingly well. It’s more that right now most of my energy is going into the actual process of adjustment itself. In fact,I’m still at the stage of learning to recognize the money.

Kind of embarrassing since—though I am Irish—I was actually born in London. Beyond that, we lived in the UK, when I was very young, I was at boarding school here in Yorkshire from the ages of 9 to 16, and then, I spent much of my twenties in either London or Wales. But, all of that was well over 30 years ago—and things change.

School apart, I have never lived in ‘English England’ before (London being a world of its own). Now, thanks to the ingenuity of one friend, and the kindness of another, I’m in rural Essex—about 50 miles from London—in a rather beautiful village which is just about as traditionally English as you can get.

The Vikings used to invade here—and the Battle of Britain was fought overhead. The farmland has been cultivated for millennia, the fields are small and irregular, and the hedgerows  are dense, close to being out of control, a lush haven for wildlife—and spectacular.

I love hedges and regard endless acres of practical monoculture as arguably efficient—but uncivilized.

I have recently discovered www.medium.com which features some rather splendid long format pieces. The following is an extract from a piece by Chris Hill on comfort zones. I cannot but agree with the sentiments he expresses.

The piece itself is entitled:

The 5 Most Important Things I’ve Learned in 5 Years as a Business Owner

Risk: Your comfort zone is an unsafe hiding place. It discourages growth, and it limits your ability to see the world from different perspectives. It might seem safe and realistic, but that changes every single day, as the world evolves in unforeseen ways. Will Smith, in an interview a few years back said,

“Being realistic is the most commonly traveled road to mediocrity. Why would you be realistic?”

I try to ask myself a variation of that question every day. In making the decision to “give it a try” — we leave our comfort zone, and find ourselves somewhere else, somewhere beautiful, it’s where the magic happens. I haven’t always been like this, not until the last five years. I couldn’t ask a girl out, until text messaging became popular. I literally broke into sweats and turned mute every time I approached a girl, hoping she’d say “yes”. But finally, when I realized it was riskier to live my entire life scared to try new things, I quit my job in corporate America. I left my comfort zone. I followed my heart and my passion, and everything changed. Since, that day, I’ve continually tried things that “might not work”; the outcomes vary, but through each attempt, my view of the world expands, exponentially. By following my heart and having the willingness to “try”, I’ve discovered new possibilities, an endless curiosity, and new eyes through which to see the world.

The best part? Once you start down this path, stepping out there, challenging yourself, and putting it on the line becomes easier. Somewhere along the way, you realize regardless of the outcome, it’s worth it.

Every single time.


 

 

Sunday, May 24, 2015

(#232-1) May 24 2015. Our propaganda influenced world.

EVEN IF IT’S MEDICAL ADVICE, AN AMAZING AMOUNT OF WHAT WE ARE TOLD ISN’T TRUE

VICTOR - SHOT BY MICK - WEBSITE 1

SUCH AS HOW MUCH WE SHOULD DRINK.

THAT IS JUST ONE  EXAMPLE.. THE MAJORITY OF MEDICAL ADVICE IS JUST NOT EVIDENCE BASED—OR IS BASED UPON SUSPECT RESEARCH CARRIED OUT BY THE MANUFACTURER.

The much propagated myth is that medicine is science-based, and that all recommendations are based up on scientifically tested solutions. Based upon my reading and general research, that isn’t true.

Beyond that, where meds are tested, in most cases it is done by the manufacturers—who are scarcely impartial, and who have a track record of manipulating the figures.

It is also worth noting that meds, for instance, are rarely tested in combination with other drugs, even though most drugs are taken in exactly that way.

You would have to wonder the the FDA tolerates this situation.

There are “lies, damn lies,” and medical research.”

The following is an extract from a recent piece published by that useful site www.mercola.com

We like to think of ourselves as independent thinkers who do our homework and  make up our minds on the basis of the best information available—but I debate the veracity of that. In fact, I think it is downright delusional.

We might prefer to think otherwise, but we are barraged with propaganda from the cradle to the grave—and I suspect we are all influenced by it to one degree of another.

Free speech (which we don’t have, by the way) sounds like a marvelous concept but when it is utilized to the extent it is by corporations, corporate controlled government, and corporate dominated academia to drown us in downright lies leavened with information of dubious reliability, it strikes me that we would be better off if we had less of it.

Many Times They Just Make Stuff Up

While it’s hard to comprehend, some health recommendations are completely fabricated and are not based in any science. Dr. Kendrick wrote about this in a recent article for The Independent:1

“If you are a man, it has virtually become gospel that drinking more than 21 units of alcohol a week is damaging to your health. But where did the evidence to support this well-known ‘fact’ come from?

The answer may surprise you. According to Richard Smith, a former editor of the British Medical Journal, the level for safe drinking was ‘plucked out of the air.’

He was on a Royal College of Physicians team that helped produce the guidelines in 1987. He told The Times newspaper that the committee's epidemiologist had conceded that there was no data about safe limits available and that ‘it's impossible to say what's safe and what isn't.’

Smith said the drinking limits were ‘not based on any firm evidence at all,’ but were an ‘intelligent guess.’ In time, the intelligent guess becomes an undisputed fact.”

According to Dr. Kendrick, the linear model for blood pressure—which states the higher your blood pressure is, in a linear fashion, the greater your risk of dying—was also made up.

Ditto for recommended cholesterol levels, and healthy versus unhealthy obesity levels. Believe it or not, none of these are based on real data. The recommendation to eat five portions of fruit and vegetables is equally made up, yet recommendations such as these become set in stone.

People believe it must be based on solid evidence and therefore true. One of the most impressive comments he made in the interview is: “Don’t believe it. They just made it up.”


 

 

Saturday, May 23, 2015

(#231-1) May 23 2015. Some books keep on popping up—deservedly so.

THIS BOOK HAS CROPPED UP SO OFTEN—AS BEING OF SOME SIGNIFICANCE IN RELATION TO UNDERSTANDING THE U.S.—THAT I FEEL OBLIGED TO FEATURE IT.

VICTOR - SHOT BY MICK - WEBSITE 1

Do the populations of different countries think differently? We all know about cultural differences—but human nature is the same the world over, communications are now global, so one might consider that the differences in thinking between the various nationalities are not that great. That apart, generalizations are somewhat hazardous.

Let me proceed into harm’s way nonetheless—and risk a few observations.

  • Anti-intellectualism is definitely a factor in American life—and not to the Nation’s advantage.
  • Ideology, stemming largely from the Right, currently seems to be a dominating force, and seems to win out over rational thinking just about every time. It renders facts irrelevant and is demonstrably anti-science. It is destructive to a degree that cannot be over-emphasized.
  • The U.S. is money oriented to a degree that is unhealthy—and which undermines rational thinking. In short, greed wins out over intellectualism. In fact, with more and more university heads earning seven figure salaries—not to mention the disgraceful treatment of adjunct academics, it is clear that greed is claiming the high ground.
  • For a host of reasons, from the sheer size of the Nation, to the neglect of the rest of the world by the mass media, the U.S. is excessively inward looking. This is something of a paradox given the active involvement of the U.S. military—not to mention U.S. business—in the rest of the world.
  • Despite its growth figures, vast military power, and other misleading indicators, the U.S. is currently in both relative and absolute decline—and this is well demonstrated by the current decline of the Middle Class and the rise of Poverty. A society which is only concerned with the economic progress of an economic elite is not a healthy society.
  • The U.S. is certainly not short of intellectual talent despite the flaws in its educational systems. However, such intellectuals don’t have the necessary clout to have an adequate impact.
  • Virtually all of the U.S.’s current problems could be resolved with relative ease if the ideas of its best intellectual thinkers were applied. The answers are out there—but few seem to be looking.

The following two reviews are from Amazon.

A penetrating analysis of the American character

By Robert Moore HALL OF FAMETOP 500 REVIEWERVINE VOICE on January 1, 2004

Format: Paperback

One reviewer below insists that this book, while excellent, is "dated." I find this an astonishing evaluation. What stunned me about this book was how familiar the anti-intellectualism from each period in American history felt. True, we are not today facing McCarthyism--our own particular moment in history feels Orwellian more than anything--but Hofstadter's overall point about anti-intellectualism being a constituent part of the national character has not been invalidated by the past forty years. Indeed, his points have been confirmed at nearly every point. And while the anti-intellectuals in the fifties may have railed against "eggheads," today the GOP directs much of their fury against the "liberal elite." Since most of "the elite" is comparatively poor compared to the Right-wing economic elite, clearly they are aiming their guns at the intellectual elite. Figures Hofstadter quotes from the 18th century sound like they could be one of today's right wing pundits.
Few books that I have ever read have helped me understand the American character as well as this one. Many of the chapters in American history that he chronicles are somewhat forgotten, but just as essential as the more familiar figures and events.
Read more ›

9 Comments Was this review helpful to you? YesNo

160 of 167 people found the following review helpful

Brilliant analysis of the American mind.......

By Brooke276 on June 18, 1999

Format: Paperback

Before this book, I had never contemplated the differences between intelligence and intellectualism, but now, armed with Hofstadter's witty, sophisticated study, I can, with confidence, better survey our national landscape. Not only does the author reveal our anti-intellectual roots, he deconstructs the origins of our commitment to "practical knowledge." Whether it's religion or the business ethic, American culture has sanctioned and outwardly promoted a disdain for intellectual contemplation in favor of more "functional" learning that will (must), in the end, bring about conformity, commercialism, and commodification, NOT abstract thought. The book is a masterpiece and if there are any people left in this country who believe the mind is the last refuge of true freedom, it should serve as a revolutionary cry for all of us to follow.


Friday, May 22, 2015

(#230-1) May 22 2015. The U.S. Supreme Court underpins this corruption.

“The system is disgusting,” says Ben (of ice-cream fame).

VICTOR - SHOT BY MICK - WEBSITE 1

One dollar! One vote! The man has a point.

America is no longer a democracy. It just has the trappings.

This is Ben Cohen, co-founder of Ben & Jerry's ice cream—but today I'm writing about something that leaves a foul taste in my mouth: money in politics.

Jeb Bush has raised so much money that he's told his billionaire donors to give no more than $1 million now and save the rest for later—and he's going to let his Super PAC run his campaign.1,2 The billionaire Koch brothers have pledged $100 million to the candidates they support, likely including Governor Scott Walker's run for president.3,4 While Ted Cruz raised $4 million in a few days, he helped his Super PAC raise $31 million.5 And Hillary Clinton is planning on raising $200-300 million for Super PACs that back her—in addition to $2.5 billion for her own campaign.6

This system is disgusting. It's proof that our democracy is more awash in political spending than ever. It's a reminder that the richest 1%, corporations, and their lobbyists are going to own these elections—and that pushes the rest of us to the sidelines.


Thursday, May 21, 2015

(#(#229-1) May 21 2015. U.S. corporations may be classified as people but they don’t have feet. If they did, their pay policies would equate to shooting them off.

THE AMERICAN BUSINESS MODEL IS NOT DELIVERING FOR A GREAT MANY AMERICANS—PROBABLY MOST.

VICTOR - SHOT BY MICK - WEBSITE 1

AND YET THERE IS A CONSISTENT REFUSAL TO FACE UP TO THAT FACT—REGARDLESS OF THE EVIDENCE

I have long believed that regardless of the prevalent hype and spin by our movers and shakers—and the much touted recovery—that the U.S. economy has serious structural problems which inhibit growth and make life a much harder struggle for many Americans than it need be.

I have listed them at length in other blogs.

Here, I shall just refer to the disastrous impact of the wage squeeze which U.S. corporations have implemented with such apparent success—even though they are undermining demand in the very markets they serve.

Read the following article from TIME magazine—and think through its implications.

Why We’re All in Big Trouble If Gas Prices Keep Going Up

Posted: 20 May 2015 05:47 AM PDT

The lower gas prices Americans have been enjoying for the past several months were supposed to boost consumer spending and get the ball rolling on more robust economic growth. That didn’t happen, and a new survey has a revealing insight as to why.

According to Bankrate.com, 40% of Americans are using the money they’ve saved from lower gas prices to pay for necessities like groceries and rent payments.

“The overwhelmingly most common response, by more than a two-to-one margin, was using it for necessities,” says Greg McBride,Bankrate’s chief financial analyst. “It was the top answer among every age group and every income group.”

Fewer than 20% of people are banking that extra cash, and fewer than 5% are investing it. Bankrate found that only about one in seven of people are spending that extra money on discretionary purchases like dinner out or a vacation. “Household budgets remain very tight,” McBride says. “People don’t have a lot of extra money to throw around, and that’s why we’ve had this slow growth.”

Millennials are a little more likely to splurge — 17% versus 14% for all respondents — but they’re also more likely to be saving or investing those savings than Americans overall.

“Millennials have gotten the memo,” McBride says. “They’ve got a greater inclination towards savings than we’ve seen in recent generations.” They’re also less likely to be saddled with mortgages and childcare costs, although many of them do have hefty student loans to pay off.

For months, Americans have displayed a reluctance to loosen their purse strings even as gas prices fell. The recent increase in prices at the pump has only confirmed what many people suspected — that those super-low prices weren’t here to stay. More importantly, paying for necessities or socking away those dollars isn’t helping the economy the way economists had hoped. McBride says earlier Bankrate surveys found that when gas prices go up, 60% of people say they cut back on discretionary spending. Compare that to the meager 14% who are increasing their spending now that gas prices have fallen.

“We’ve been waiting for this economic shot in the arm from lower gas prices and it hasn’t materialized,” McBride says. “Now we know why.”

That’s because lower gas prices, no matter how welcome, are no substitute for higher wages, which have been conspicuously absent for much of the recovery. “Until people see more money in the paycheck, they don’t feel the economic recovery has landed at their doorstep,” McBride says. “Until that happens, the economy’s only getting better for other people.”


Wednesday, May 20, 2015

(#228-1) May 20 2015 The fact that traditional publishers are no friends of writers is scarcely news to authors.

THE FOLLOWING IS AN EXCELLENT ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT STATE OF PUBLISHING

VICTOR - SHOT BY MICK - WEBSITE 1

AND THE PLIGHT OF THE AUTHOR

IT IS NOT A PRETTY PICTURE.  WHERE WILL IT LEAD IS THE QUESTION?

How to fix book publishing

Start with the author, and build from there

Note to authors: We welcome you to comment directly in the text or to emailpublish@pronoun.com. Latest edits based on author feedback: 5/20/15

It’s 2015, and publishing is broken.

Writing an outstanding book takes all of an author’s effort, talent and passion. Publishing is about connecting that work to readers in the best way possible. But the industry’s structure puts a long chain of people and corporations, each with their own incentives, between you and your audience.

Traditional publishers, in the pursuit of blockbusters, take control of publishing rights — then abandon authors whose sales don’t generate the expected return on investment.

Self-publishing forces you to choose between hundreds of costly services whose value is obscured by sales pitches. And once you publish, you’re on your own.

We believe authors deserve better.


What we’ve learned

In the past five years, we’ve seen first-hand the challenges and intricacies of publishing books in a digital world. We’ve partnered with Penguin Random House, Simon & Schuster, Hachette, HarperCollins, and Macmillan. We’ve published books for The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and Forbes. We’ve worked with many of New York’s leading literary agencies.

Though the publishing industry is filled with people who care deeply about books, it always privileges someone above the author — whether it’s the retailer, the distributor, or the publisher. When there’s a conflict of interest, the author loses. When margins increase, the author is the last to benefit.

You can see this clearly in the public fight between Hachette and Amazon. As authors John Scalzi and Walter Jon Williams as well as publishing analystMike Shatzkin point out, these corporations are not your friends. We believe the underlying issue is simple:

The publishing industry does not put authors first.


The publishing industry —
a model that predates electricity

Just like in 1892, there are thousands of submissions for every available spot in “traditional” publishing. J.K. Rowling was rejected by twelve publishersbefore she was signed by Bloomsbury for an advance of £1,500. Authors query their hearts out and pull strings in the hopes that an agent or an editor will deem them worthy. And when they are lucky enough to win the lottery of approval, they are asked to give everything up: the rights to their work, copyediting, final say on the covers, input on marketing budget and promotional strategy.

Even then, more than 80 percent of published books don’t reach enough readers to earn out their advances. How can they, when publishers only invest promotional dollars in a fraction of their titles? Publishers think of their catalogs as a portfolio — they spread their risk, and invest more resources in books that succeed. That makes sense from their perspective, but authors with unique voices who need time to build an audience are left with no options.

When publishers fully control the marketing of a book, authors lose their ability to reach readers. They’ve given up their authority, so when the publisher gives up on them, their story is over.


So what about self-publishing?

Thanks to recent advances in the technology for creating, distributing, and reading books, authors can now publish on their own, with complete freedom — but no support.

Self-publishing today means finding your way through a maze of costly and bewildering services. Many don’t deliver what they promise. The biggest company in self-publishing, Author Solutions (which was purchased for $116mm by Pearson in 2012 and is now part of Penguin Random House), is currently being sued by its own authors for its deceptive practices.


It doesn’t have to be this way

We believe technology can give authors a choice beyond the framework of “traditional publishing” versus “self-publishing.”

Software can quickly convert manuscripts to high-quality digital books that work on every device. Digital distribution can reach millions of potential readers instantly.

But technology can do more than just drastically reduce the cost and time it takes to create and distribute a book. It can also help authors understand their readers, connect with them, and build their audience.

Digital retailers like Amazon and Apple already know far more about book buyers than anyone in history. They know where your readers live, what other books they love, and how they found your book. They choose to keep this information for themselves, yet it could be harnessed in an author’s favor. Authors could use digital tools to learn about their audience, understand how people find and evaluate their books before buying, and adjust how they position their book to reach more readers.

How can publishing realize these possibilities?

Someone needs to start with the author, and build from there.


What every author deserves

Authors deserve support, especially after their book is launched.
Every author shouldn’t have to reinvent the wheel. You deserve to learn from other successful authors and receive clear recommendations based on accurate data. What should you do the day your book launches? A week later? A month? How do you get visibility in online stores? How can you drive more readers to see your book? Launching is just the beginning of the journey, and authors need help the entire way — with final say over important decisions.

Authors deserve complete transparency.
To know what to do, you need to know what’s happening. You deserve instant access to your books’ sales on every retailer. You deserve to be notified when something important happens — a valuable review, a retailer changing the price of your book, mentions on social media.

Authors deserve to have control over their work.
You must retain all rights to your work. You must be able to publish when you choose, set your own price, and change your price as you see fit. You deserve total ownership over how you present your work and yourself to readers. As you learn more about your readers, you must have the freedom to experiment with your metadata and messaging.

Authors deserve to profit from advances in technology.
Technology can make creating and distributing a beautiful book extremely fast and practically free. That speed and cost should be passed directly to authors, skipping intermediaries.


What we believe at Pronoun

We believe that books are important, and that the authors who create them deserve the highest respect.

We believe that technology should be used to empower authors, not to exploit them.

We believe that publishing should be open and completely free.


Calling all authors

We think that a major change to publishing is inevitable. We want to create that change by starting with the author, and building from there. Authors, we want to hear from you.

Contact us.
Get a note when we launch (or apply for early access).