Iowa: Edwards Takes on Corporate Greed

\ Leave a Comment \ by

“Everything about America is threatened today … this is an epic struggle for the future of America,” Edwards told the cheering crowd. “Corporate greed and the very powerful use their money to control Washington and this corrupting influence is destroying the middle class.”

Marc Cooper, HuffingtonPost.com. Posted December 29, 2007.

As Paul Krugman recently confirmed in his column for the New York Times, Obama is attempting to compare labor unions and progressive interests with groups that advocate for corporations as he criticizes Edwards, those recent Iowa ads and tries to link Edwards to Washington lobbyists.

But by doing just this, Obama glaringly leaves the door wide open on his own involvement with big business lobbyists and more importantly his denial of what’s at stake in this era of rampant corporate greed.

Christine Escobar, HuffingtonPost.com, Posted December 30, 2007

I am not sure who I will vote for, either in the upcoming Illinois primary or in the election next November. In all honesty, the Democratic slate seems to be an embarrassment of riches and the Republican gang simply embarrassing. According to Glassbooth, Dennis Kucinich is closest to my views.

I often vote impractically, so to speak, rather than pragmatically, so I may go with the statistical match in the end. If I were in Iowa this week, though, I would be voting for John Edwards. Senator Clinton may the toughest dog in the pack, and Senator O’Bama the most symbolically interesting, but they are both too rooted in the old corporate Democratic system.

If Edwards is nominated and then elected, he will have to face these same pressures to conform, and the same need to organize anti-corporate coalitions in Congress, but he at least has a professional history of fighting corporate greed and power. He seems to be the only one that knows that, say, Greenpeace and the AFL-CIO are not ‘special interests’ in the same way as, say, GM or Ford. He has the best chance to end the war quickly, and the least likely to fight to preserve the for-profit health care system.

Posted in: Autobiographical, Economics, Language, Writing

The War on the War on the War on Christmas

\ Leave a Comment \ by

Media warriors divide the ranks of those on two sides: those who gleefully view public Christmas observance as a right versus those who glumly view Christmas as a state-imposed endorsement of religious worship.

The buzz they create touches nearly every part of an otherwise festive season filled with light, color and music. There are heated arguments over the need for public funding for Christmas lights. Many nearly come to blows debating the mere use of the word “Christmas” in schools and at public events. Long-winded television commentators warn incessantly of “Christmas under attack” while politicians drone on about the separation of church and state. Retailers and their customers haggle over the use of the phrase “Merry Christmas”. Scholars debate over the pagan origins of modern Christmas celebrations while Christian “fundamentalists” denounce efforts to remove the mention of Christ from any holiday event. Every Christmas season seems to elevate the debate to a new level of absurdity.

Defend Christmas, “The War on Christmas“

I admit that I have a perverse fascination for these sorts of fights, the struggle to reestablish the reality of a fantasy, or something. All of those calls for women to ‘return the home’– I think of my grandmother, who we called Grandmere, and who worked all of her life.

And then there is the perennial call to defend Christmas, which must have begun as an advertising ploy on Fox but has now taken on at least the feel of reality to a remarkable number of people. Some of this is just plain creepy, like the Family Time with Santa video.

That reminds me of all of those baby Jesus stories they used to tell us during our weekly Catholic classes. This idea, though, of being a ‘persecuted Christian’ is very appealing to some; certainly more appealing than realizing you’re a rich real estate agent or something. Things have gone all meta too, at the War on the War on Christmas.

Yet, as far as I can tell, the entire war, and now the attempt to bring reason back into the war– the war on the war– is rooted in two very minor phenomena. First, a few retailers made the pragmatic decision to use Happy Holidays rather than Merry Christmas in various contexts. It’s always odd to hear right winger market worshipers suddenly go all secular and decide that maybe the market isn’t always right.

Second, a few school administrators, perhaps newly aware of the diversity of their student bodies, decided to dial down the Christian rhetoric. I have a lot of sympathy for the schools who want to find some way to be more inclusive but who inevitable face this weird hysteria over things that don’t exist and over exaggerated threats to Christianity’s overwhelming cultural dominance.

It may be difficult to imagine a Black president getting elected, or a Woman, or one with a beard for that matter, but an openly nonbeliever? That’s really the unthinkable thought. As a friend said the other day, everything is forced to be related to Christianity, even atheism. I just wish these folks were more focused on fighting the ever uglier commercialism of Christmas.

Posted in: Writing

Forward-Looking Statements

\ Leave a Comment \ by

Statements in this release not based on historical facts are considered “forward-looking” and, accordingly, involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those discussed. Although such forward-looking statements have been made in good faith and are based on reasonable assumptions, there is no assurance that the expected results will be achieved. These statements include (without limitation) statements as to future expectations, beliefs, plans, strategies, objectives, events, conditions and financial performance. In connection with the “safe harbor” provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, we are providing this cautionary statement to identify important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those anticipated.

Ameren, Media Release, Dec 14, 2007

My utility company, Ameren, has gotten into a little bit of trouble recently. Over the last several years it has successfully argued that it needed to be freed of cumbersome regulations that were making it impossible to make a profit. Embarrassingly, they recently announced a record profit jump of 76%, all on the heels of huge rate increases that they may be legally forced to return in the form of rebates.

So they have begun a PR campaign to try to get their image all ironed up and green. They recently announced a ‘green initiative’ in which they acknowledge the reality of global warming and outline “how Ameren companies have worked over the past two decades to reduce sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions in advance of regulatory mandates and how Ameren intends to address greenhouse gas (principally carbon dioxide — CO2) emissions.”

All of this is well and good but what I find so interesting is the way the press release ends. They set out all of their plans for environmental initiatives and then they conclude by noting that many of their ideas are “forward-looking” and so “involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those discussed.” They then go on to list 23 reasons why Ameren may not be able to keep to their plans.

Among their reasons they include everything from “Changes in laws and other governmental actions, including monetary and fiscal policies,” to”Acts of sabotage, war, terrorism or intentionally disruptive acts.” It’s a classic of both current American political rhetoric and contemporary corporate double-speak. I can’t figure out how I might translate that into ordinary speech. Perhaps, “shit happens, and we might change our minds.”

Posted in: Economics, Language, Writing