Lying Murderers

In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court gave corporations the same status as citizens in their political activities.  Their lobbyists are free to bribe, influence, and persuade lawmakers.  It's not the sort of decision that most consider to be reasonable.  

Corporations have given us little reason to trust them.  Like big tobacco, for example -- they lied to the American people and even in testimony to Congress.  They lied because the truth would affect their profits.

Big tobacco lied to us for decades.  They aggressively promoted lies in advertising, false information in testimony, and they suppressed the science reports that told the truth about how deadly it all is.  They said their products were safe, improved over the years, less nicotine, etc.  All lies.

While they were lying, 1200 people died from smoking every day, and the companies were aware of it.  For decades, they continued lying and selling their deadly products.  They even modified their cigarettes to make them more addictive, knowing that people would die as a result of their corporate actions.

Why should we consider big business as a legitimate voice in anything?  Those whose only ethic is money, why should we let them exist outside of prison?  The executives knowingly and deliberately sent millions to their death.  Their motive was profit, pure and simple; they proved to be unethical beyond any explanation or excuse. 

Top executives of the seven leading American tobacco companies who sat together and lied to Congress: 
Donald S. Johnston, president and chief executive of American Tobacco Company 
Thomas Sandefur Jr., chairman and chief executive of Brown and William Tobacco Corporation
Edward A. Horrigan, chairman and chief executive of Liggett Group Inc.
Andrew H. Tisch, chief executive Lorillard Tobacco Company 
Joseph Taddeo, president of United States Tobacco Company 
James W. Johnston, chief executive of R. J. Reynolds 
William I. Campbell, chief executive of Philip Morris

It’s been called the greatest crime in human history.  Big Tobacco knew cigarettes caused cancer, emphysema, heart disease and other deadly diseases, and they lied to the public about it.  Big Tobacco knew that nicotine in cigarettes was addictive, and they lied about that, too.  And they add things to cigarettes to try increasing the addictive effect of nicotine, all while publicly claiming that smoking is a “choice” that people can simply quit doing when they choose to do so.  Meanwhile, internally within the companies, they recognized that cigarette smoking was an addiction that most smokers cannot give up even if they want to.  Big Tobacco celebrated that, while knowing that nicotine addiction would lead to millions and millions of Americans suffering and dying from very serious diseases.  Big Tobacco didn’t care 30, 40 and 50 years ago, and Big Tobacco doesn’t care today.

Tobacco companies were sued in several states (resulting in large settlements) and were all, after several years, convicted in federal court of racketeering. In a punishing affirmance, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has issued a 92-page per curiam opinion upholding the judgment issued by D.C. District Court Judge Gladys Kessler in August 2006, in which she found eleven of America’s major Tobacco Companies and related entities guilty of nearly 150 counts of mail and wire fraud in a continuing “pattern of racketeering activity” with the “specific intent to defraud” under the Racketeer Influence Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.
Big oil has behaved similarly as has Wall Street.  The conscienceless corporations wield more influence than citizens.  This is not government of, for, and by the people; it's government by money.

Episode X - Final Choices

Francis Schaeffer's last chapter notes that in the scheme of history, this current generation chooses what comes next. So how does that work out? Do we build on the lessons of our varied past? Or do we choose en masse for our personal satisfaction and pleasure?

An African pastor friend described modern choice, "... when you study political science you will understand, man cannot agree on anything if it doesn't favor him."

So what do our choices reveal; what are the goals this current generation has chosen?

Magnificence?
Great goodness?
Nobility, courage, justice, compassion?

Or are the goals just more of the same? Wealth, luxury, leisure, personal pleasure, removal of restraints?

Can you tell? Is it visible in our cultural expression? Consider MTV's 'Jersey Shore' as an example. (OK, it's a really bad example, I know.)

The show is about a group of US youths, and it has record ratings, but it offends some, it seems. Some advertisers have asked that their ads not be aired during the show; Dell, Domino's, and American Family Insurance. UNICO National formally requested that MTV cancel the show.

The series has been exported to dozens of countries worldwide. It's the face we show the world. MTV leads the international media marketplace for such things. Nothing is more bizarre than children on the far side of the world quoting some MTVism to you by way of greeting.  (I can't adequately describe the disappointing realization that that's how they saw me and my country and my culture.)

 

Has this current generation made its choice?
We face personal decisions daily that are often counter to our culture. When we're thinking straight, we hope and intend to choose magnificence of character, but the world we live in seems no longer to honor such a choice. So, we continue as best we are able to so choose.

The most significant
thing you will do today
... is choose. ~ my wife; smart lady.
 

Poverty's Mind

We often think of poverty in simple terms, as my friend pointed out recently; things you need but don't have.  While that's at least part of the truth, those who live in poverty don't necessarily think of it the same way.  When everyone lacks shoes, it's doesn't occur to you as a huge issue, I suppose.

The common thread we do hear from adults in such difficult circumstances, though, is their lack of a voice, of significance, of having options.  An African father who has nothing for his children said he was ashamed at his inability to provide; he had no worth or influence or significance.  No matter how hard he tries, nothing changes.

In the developed countries, so many options exist for work, for assistance, for relocation, for education, ... and of course for food and medical needs.  Poverty is perhaps understood by those who are in it as the lack of any such options.  No choice in the matter.  Powerlessness.

Children, like these here in a shoreline village, run to greet the visitor in their neighborhood.  They and their families are gracious and hospitable.  All work hard, every day.  Survival needs are met, but their parents struggle against difficult obstacles.

Poverty is a weapon of mass destruction - Part I

There is no food shortage. There is enough for everyone, at least for now. The rich and influential never go hungry, not in any country in the world.

No one chooses poverty for their family, but for many, it comes anyway. None choose for their children to be fast-tracked to failure. No parent chooses for their family to go hungry and slowly die from curable illnesses. But such things come despite their attempts at escape.

Pointing at the poor in condescension, as though through some character flaw, poverty came from within them ... we miss, perhaps, an underlying truth: poverty is a class, culture, and political choice; the poor are its victims. Is that true?

There are too many occasions of deprivation where it doesn't have to happen. Equal opportunity is a goal still far in the distance.  Equal education is a dream.

Historically, the localized economy was structured for gain by the 'upper class', the nobility, the landed gentry at the expense of the 'peasants', the politically and economically disenfranchised.  That model has carried forward to today.

Friends on the far side of the world; they

work harder than I, but their opportunities

are limited by the choices wealthy

nations have made.

About half of the world’s people live in economic distress.  Is it enough to blame poor people for their own predicament? Have they been lazy, made poor decisions, and been solely responsible for their plight? What about their governments? Have they pursued policies that actually harm successful development? Such causes for poverty and inequality are real,  but deeper and more global causes of poverty are often less discussed.

Behind the increasing interconnectedness promised by globalization, we find government decisions, policies, and practices, all of which are formulated by developed countries in favor of their own success.  Of course.  The result is a continuation of the gap, a burgeoning economy that leaves much of the world behind.

"Why is it that corporations give millions of dollars to elected officials? Do you think it's simply public-spirited behavior?"  ~Walter E. Williams

The primary influence on government actions regarding the marketplace are national and multinational corporations, many of which are economically larger than countries.

In the face of such enormous external influence, the governments of poor nations and their people are often powerless. As a result, in the global context, the gap between rich and poor continues to increase.  We've seen such inequity before, and it has not been easily resolved.

As individuals, we perhaps cannot solve the dilemma, but we can make a difference for others.

Which way is up?

It's almost like there's a ceiling above

which we might rise and be human.

A group of monkeys will attack an intruder that is identical in every way but the wrong color.

Are humans and animals different?

Discrimination is natural ... as in animal natural, not sapiens wisdom.  Our humanity suggests we rise up a bit, think about things, and perhaps live to a higher standard than just animalistic ways.

So far:
 
We've decided that justice is right and necessary.  We can't live together without it unless we're willing to have a lot of death and oppression, and we're generally agreed that should stop.  Not everyone agrees on the rules yet.

We've decided that equality is right, humanly right.  This one has taken millennia, but we understand scientifically that we're all one species and that racial differentiations are without significance. We're all the same, and we're still learning how to live that way.  Not everyone agrees yet, it seems.

It's almost like there's this ceiling above which we might rise and be human, more than animal, above just instinct and selfishness.

Curious how much of our culture and norms are below that threshold?

Class discrimination -- animal, not human.  Chickens do that.
Cultural discrimination -- animal, not human.  Rats and mice do that.
Racial discrimination and segregation -- animal, not human.  Monkeys do that.
The high-school in-crowd -- animal, not human.  Teenagers do that.
         Okay, okay, but they're really disgusting when they behave like that.

It gets difficult ...  how is someone noble?

Notice the 'alpha dominant' who takes the lead in every group and compare with the non-dominant who elicits interaction by all the participants. Is one noble and the other cowardly? One strong and one weak, a poor pathetic peon?

Or ...  is one striving for power and influence while the other reaches for inclusion for all the participants.

What if the alpha tries to dominate because he (or she) is damaged goods, driven by insecurity and fear of loss while the non-dominant is secure in self and purpose and lives without the need to climb up over anyone?   In such a case, which is the weak one?  (That particular dominant is common, by the way.)

There are few folks that are purely this or that, of course, which suggests we need to be self-aware and seriously in pursuit of learning, perhaps for a lifetime.

And there's more to 'natural' behavior.  Consider the larger scale ...

A typical hierarchy has the boss at the top and the peons at the bottom. Is the pharaoh really a god?

This arrangement rides on the productivity of those below.  The farther up the ladder, the less meaningful productivity per individual.  In the end, the most benefit usually goes to the ones who produce the least. That's the way power and inequality work.  In its worst implementation, those at the bottom are expendable resources to be used up and replaced.  Is the 'noble' one at the top?

For a contrarian view -- let's consider how the greatest might be the least and vice versa. Perhaps the one who is actually the greatest is the one who equips and assists others, who lifts them up, binds their wounds, and helps them live productive lives.  That's what we're told, anyway. We're given apostles and prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers for equipping regular folks; equipping them, not ruling them. The intent is not to contain folks but to empower them for life and service in a tumultuous world that desperately needs their contribution.

Perhaps the greatest example is the one who laid down his life for us all.  If his example is the one to follow, then we might consider if the power pyramid could perhaps be the wrong approach to pretty much everything that matters.

There are questions that follow about government, community leadership, church governance, family relationships, the marketplace, and international relations.  
Next?  Review each relationship, perhaps, for hints of power vs. service, for superiority vs. equality.  Just a thought.  

Did I ever tell you about the two young men who were disagreeing and asked my opinion about wife beating?  One thought he should beat her regularly to keep her in line while the other thought it was only appropriate if she disrespected him.  They are fine fine Christian gentlemen whom I love, but that was their culture.  What are the chances our culture has a quirk or two?

Time passes.

    

The lesson of history?

   Time passes.

       Things change.

     Civilizations at their peak present curious spectacles, believing everything but their own mortality.   

     When we admire our great cities, we find it hard to believe that they will ever crumble.   

     Every civilization begins and ends.     

The Holy Roman Empire 962–1806 AD
not to be confused with the Roman Empire

     Even this one.

Western civilization emerged in the century leading up to WWI.  Colonial imperialism and empires began to collapse following WWII, and the two superpowers emerged.  Western cultures following 1980 became progressively more secularized and ambiguous about identity and values.  Conflicts with non-western cultures (Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, ISIL, Libya, Taliban, Al-Qaeda, Bokoharam, and Russia) arise repeatedly.


It is perhaps worth reevaluating our own perspective; there's always more. (ref: a perhaps difficult read but extraordinarily enlightening)

Common causal contributors:
- Economic failure
- Moral obscuration
- Environmental exhaustion
- Overpopulation
- Natural disaster, disease
- Economic inequality, revolution
- Foreign invasion


Great Civilizations and Empires Past:

The Ottoman Empires - a
Sunni Islamic state
1299–1923 AD

The Umayyad Caliphate - second
 of the Muslim Empires

The Persian Empires
at greatest extent 
550 BC – Today (Iran)

The Han Dynasty 206 BC–220 AD

The British Empire at greatest extent 
1497–1997 AD

The Russian Empire before WWI

The Mongol Empire  1206–1368 AD

The Roman and Byzantine Empires 
510 BC – 1453 AD

Empires and cultures of
the past are gone, relegated

 to history, the common fate

of every civilization, and a
reminder, perhaps, that
the purpose of our life
 is not power or rule
or domination.

The arc of history bends toward delusion. Every hegemon thinks it is the last; all ages believe they will endure forever. In reality, of course, states rise, fall, and compete with one another along the way.  And how they do so determines the world’s fate.