Test Your Might! (Blog #13)

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Corporate Free Speech - Chris Dodd
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Skate Expectations

Money shouldn't be in the American political system. But, of course, that's being unrealistic. Candidates have to campaign or, put simply, advertise themselves. Advertisements on a national scale take a lot of funds. Unfortunately, allowing donations broke the seal on Pandora's box and when corporations got their hands on it they unleashed the chaos within.

I remember hearing that money was a "new form of speech" when watching the Colbert Report last year. It dumbfounded me. It was the most idiotic and asinine thing I had ever heard in my life. But, as Stephen began to explain the situation in his satirical way, I understood. It was just another turn of the screw of a principle that I knew all too well: if you have enough money, you can control whatever you want. And corporations have a lot of money to put behind politicians.

Now, corporate money could be a good thing if it was a benevolent donation, but it's not. It usually comes with a whole lot of nudging, but more often, it's a done deal. There's nothing democratic about these dealings. The whole "e pluribus unum" crap we live by is a lie. There are good people and bad, there seems to be more bad than good. If there weren't, then more laws would serve the interests of the common people and stick instead of being repealed to serve the interests of a corporation.

The popular vote doesn't mean much if the electoral votes don't reflect it. How much of politics is just going through the motions for outward appearances? How much happens behind the scenes? Only the all-seeing eye knows. And, ironically, it's riding on the back of some big dollar bills.

The Apple Doesn't Fall Far from the Tree (Blog #12)

In choosing what type of business you want to work for, there are some things to consider. Family businesses may offer a more relaxed working environment, but there are somethings that small business owners just can't offer. Corporations often come with a 401K plan along with dental and/or health insurance. In terms of job security, the corporation is probably equally matched with a smaller business. In a family restaurant, or something of the like, that particular business could go under due to competition. All of that pressure is on the shoulders of the owner. In an organization, job security is minimal as well even though you're more likely to lose your job due to cutbacks than an expired lease.

In Natasha Werther's case, I feel that what makes Kinko's "a nasty old corporation" (77) is the fact that their lack of morals is so profound that it extends to their employees. Werther even says that the biggest issue at Kinko's is making sure that their employees don't steal from them. Maybe the constant surveillance makes the employees want to act out; maybe the cameras are there to keep certain people from acting out. In the long run, it probably doesn't matter anyway, because employees steal from the company anyway. They steal supplies from the store for personal projects.

Corporations make exploitation seem permissible and, in turn, they breed employees that find it permissible as well. The corporation thinks only of itself and its employees think only for themselves. But is this the fault of the corporation or that of the people?

The Great Stromboli! (Blog # 11)

I've never wondered about what a corporation is. Bakan describes a corporation as "a legal institution, one whose existence depends upon...[pursuing] relentlessly...its own self-interest" (1). They are abominations and they have as unnatural a relationship as a puppeteer and a puppet. A puppet master animates the tool of his trade, he does not imbue it with life. Perhaps that is why Louis Baker refers to corporations as “Frankenstein monsters” (19). The corporation does not follow the "natural order" of things. The conventional business hierarchy would have the government at the helm, but with the advent of the corporation, the government had to answer to something other than itself, something less worthy. It essentially handed over its power when it upheld the machinations of the corporation. In doing so, it made a monster.

Take the tobacco company for instance. Nowadays, there is a campaign against the tobacco company called truth. Through humor and shock they have been trying to bring that particular corporation to its knees. When you think about it, the CEOs of Marlboro and other brands are marketing death. What is even more sad is that people buy into it. Between 1930 and 1950, the side effects of smoking were not extensively studied. In literature and media of the time, everyone had a neatly rolled cig between their fingers. But since then, some of the glamour seems to have worn off.

The corporation is like a Frankenstein monster. Frankenstein was given eternal life. Though the tobacco company is not at its prime anymore, it has not gone under. Why is that? Is the corporation immortal? One thing is for certain: it already pulls the strings of the world's political leaders.

"Oh Brave New World with Such [Things] in it" (Blog #9)

There are not a lot of things I can think of that affects workers in a bad way. Most of the technological improvements I think of in the medical field do conflict with some of my ethical ideals; however, biotechnology often does. Something about other humans playing God just doesn't sit right with people. Take the work of Gabor Forgacs for instance:



I don't see this doing anything bad for workers. If anything, it would open up another position in healthcare for analysts and operators.

About the only kind of thing that impacts workers in a negative way would be the Nintendo Wii, and even that's a stretch. Assuming that physical therapy or physical fitness can be considered a distant form of the healthcare field, then I suppose that videogames could be putting some people out of work. Imagine a physical therapy clinic where, instead of many therapists for many people, there was only one therapist who relied upon the help of a videogame to cater to many clients. A machine cannot provide the human connection and motivation that some people need to heal. "I only said it was lovely here because … well, because progress is lovely, isn't it?" ~Brave New World

Made in China (Blog #9)

(2:00--4:00)

Is outsourcing to blame for the lack of jobs in the US? It's a fairly simple question, but hidden in its depths are political ideals and ethical issues. Outsourcing "referred to the practice of turning over noncritical parts of a business to a company that specialized in that activity" (Thottam 124) before it got its bad reputation. It sounds like a good idea to me. Why write papers and do the research if writing is your specialty and you can pay someone else to do the research for you? It saves you time and allows you to get more writing done. But too much of a good thing can be a bad thing.

Outsourcing has gotten out of hand and I don't think that the workers are misguided in their anger. I have seen my parents weather more lay-offs than I can count and that's only counting the one's they tell me about. It stresses people out.

One the one hand, companies wouldn't have to send jobs overseas if the quality and speed demands that they wanted were being met by Americans. But there are Americans willing to do quality work. In fact, outsourcing has come back to bite big business. Every day there is a long list of recalls on the news for goods that have been produced overseas (usually from China). The reason corporations are bearing the brunt of political and unionized ridicule is because they seem not to care about the quality of the products they are selling so long as they can get them made for a much cheaper price than they would ever be able to while paying Americans a fair wage.

Tug of War (Blog #8)

“High-tech stress” (Rifkin) is neither the fault of the company or that of the worker exclusively. It is a little bit of both if you look at it from both the perspective of the employer and employee. The employer wants to increase productivity so that he can go home with a big paycheck and you cannot fault that person for wanting a paycheck big enough to live comfortably.

The problem arises when people in a position of power start to overstep their bounds. This creates a disjunction between the worker and the employer. What should be a team effort with bosses there to oversee and help with problems on the floor (more experience) becomes something else entirely. Perhaps it is the natural course of things that employer and employee are constantly in a power struggle, constantly trying to exploit one another. I don't see any way around it and here's why:

1) workers want higher wages

-in order for the workers to get the pay they want, the company would have to cut its profits in order to pay the workers more. ultimately, this would decrease the competitiveness of the company and if stressed to its limit, the company could go under. this would mean that workers be out of jobs and worse of than they initially were.

2) employers want a higher surplus

-if the company does not have high enough production to make their target profit for the fiscal year (and they very well may not if they have to go through job cuts) then increasing the wages of its laborers could stress the company to the point of bankruptcy. Consequentially, if corporations can't lower wages either, they have to make cuts and implement plans to keep productivity at the status quo.

All of this leads to an immense amount of stress on not only the employee, but the employer as well. I don't deal with stress well. In fact, it hits me in the face like a sack of bricks and go down for the count if i have the time to sleep it off. However, if I don't, there are a couple of things I can do to soften the blow. I either read a good book, crochet, or do some other solitary task. It helps me to remove myself from the stresses of life if only for a moment. But workers seldom have the luxury of time. They have jobs to go to and families to take care of. But then again, so do the higher ups. The only difference is, in the end, the people with the most power--the employers--can call the shots. And I'm sure that takes a lot of the stress off.

(Blog #7 skipped)