Articles and More!: corporate

Showing posts with label corporate. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 2, 2014

Cartoon: Fun with corporate conscience clauses

Click to enlarge.

Daily Kos

Cartoon: Fun with corporate conscience clauses

Wednesday, February 26, 2014

Why Do Movie Theaters Sell Such Lousy Corporate Garbage Food?

There"s no real reason for corn syrup, food starch, malic acid and artificial colors to dominate the menu.

America has a love/hate relationship with movie theater snacks. We share a universal opinion that the offerings are too expensive and unhealthy. But while theater policies forbid moviegoers from bringing their own food, we seem happy enough to be a captive audience and line up for the nostalgic charms of greasy popcorn, Dots and watery soda.

Snacks are a cash cow for theaters, providing some 85 percent in net profits. But no one really goes after the food Americans eat in movie theaters, which is mostly bits of corn syrup, food starch, malic acid, and artificial colors, encapsulated in a sugary ether. Such snacks seem like an integral part of going to the movies, a trip that usually falls somewhere between an absolute good and a mindless indulgence. Pauline Kael once described this simultaneously trashy and transcendent experience as, “eating a candy bar and cleaning an ‘allegorical problem of human faith’ out of your teeth.”

But before you plunk down $ 7 for a medium-sized bag of popcorn at the movie theater, consider its cost to your health. A 2009 study conducted by the Center for Science in the Public Interest analyzed samples from the country"s three largest movie theater chains — Regal Entertainment, AMC Theatre Groups, and Cinemark. It turns out that there are 1,200 calories in just one medium-sized bag of Regal’s popcorn. Even a small popcorn from Regal contains the same number of calories as Personal Pan Pepperoni Pizza from Pizza Hut — and three times the saturated fat.

Jayne Hurley, a senior nutritionist at CSPI, is quoted in the report as saying, “Regal and AMC are our nominees for Best Supporting Actor in the Obesity Epidemic.”

This popcorn problem probably has something to do with the fact that people eat more movie theater food when it is served in larger packaging. Scientists have found that this phenomenon is particularly true even when the customer does not like the taste of the food he or she is eating. It’s precisely this logic that movie theaters profit off of, and which former mayor Michael Bloomberg attempted to counteract with his plan to ban soft drinks of 16 ounces or more in New York City.

One organization that spoke out against Bloomberg’s soda ban was the National Association of Concessionaires, an industry trade association whose members include racetracks, universities, convention centers, and of course, movie theaters. The country’s biggest theater chains are members and so are corporations that keep their concessions well-stocked, such as Coca Cola, PepsiCo, Hershey, Nestle, and Weaver.

Dan Borschke, executive vice-president of NAC, says that “the vast number of movie theaters are now corporate-owned in very large capacities. There are still mom-and-pop operations, but they’re fewer and far between.”

Borschke also spoke of the new trend in movie theater cuisine, the Cinébistro. Cobb Theaters, a chain operating out of Birmingham, Ala., with locations across the southeast, cooked up the franchise, but many more circuits have followed suit, including AMC’s Dine-In Theatres and Cinemark’s Bistros.

“What’s amazing is they literally have a full-fledged kitchen,” Borschke said. “In many ways it’s a restaurant with an entertainment charge.” When asked if these restaurants have healthy options, Boschke said there were some, but admitted that the restaurants are still relatively rare and most moviegoers aren’t looking to spend that kind of money on food anyway. What they do offer is a very particular service to a very slim sliver of movie theater clientèle.

“Theaters are looking to fill many different niches,” Borschke said.

So why is it that movie theaters continue to sell unhealthy food? Very simply, because we"re creatures of habit, and we continue to associate artery-clogging snacks with the moviegoing experience, much in the same way that we expect cake and ice cream at birthday parties. “Theaters will only sell you what sells,” Borschke observed.

Our demand for cheaply produced food is a money-maker for theaters. According to Regal’s recent fourth-quarter report, the multiplex raked in about 26 percent of its total revenue from concessions. This may not seem all that high, but consider that Regal spent $ 265 million in operating expenses for film rentals and advertising costs, but only $ 25 million on concessions, and those profit margins start looking puffier than a fistful of popcorn. The numbers for Cinemax and AMC’s most recent earnings look similar.

And NAC wants to keep it that way. The organization keeps tabs on legislative and regulatory issues that can impact the bottom lines of its members through its Government Relations Committee, which includes executives from three top movie chains and one from a major stadium concessionaire. Boschke also sits on the committee.

Movie theaters are also exempt from the 2011 FDA rule requiring chain restaurants with over 20 locations to post calorie counts on their food and drink menus (the ruling does not apply to alcoholic beverages). Margo G. Wooten, the director of nutrition policy at CSPI, told the New York Times at the time of the decision that exempting movie theaters from the ruling was a mistake. “It doesn’t matter whether you happen to be watching a movie while you’re eating,” she said. “Those calories still count.”

Some argue that theme parks and sporting events sell food that is just as unhealthful, but movie theaters are by far the bigger offenders to public health. Nearly three times as many people in the U.S. and Canada go to the movies than to theme parks and sports games combined, according to the Motion Picture Association of America. The same study found that most moviegoers are “frequent,” meaning they go more than once a month, and that in 2012 the number of frequent visitors rose in every single age demographic.

In the end, the price the nation pays for unhealthy movie theater food is just a drop in the bucket compared to what fast food corporations have wrought on Americans’ physical well-being. But even McDonalds offers apple slices and salads. Why should movie theater corporations and the stratospherically wealthy vendors they partner with choose to withhold healthier options? And why shouldn’t they have to comply with the few food and beverage regulations that lightly constrain fast-food chains? A simple calorie count would help customers make a more informed decision about what they do and don’t eat.

If the government won’t regulate, and the theaters won’t branch out, customers can use their purchasing power to manage the junk food mania. “On the concession side the number-one seller is always popcorn and soft drinks; they have been for decades,” said Borschke.

It’s completely within our power to change this. Until we do, Americans will continue purchasing four ounces of Junior Mints and cardboard packaging for totally absurd prices just because they will be eaten in a dark room full of enthralled strangers.

Why Do Movie Theaters Sell Such Lousy Corporate Garbage Food?

At A Political Statement, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by A Political Statement and how it is used.

Log Files

Like many other Web sites, A Political Statement makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.

Cookies and Web Beacons

A Political Statement does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.

DoubleClick DART Cookie

Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on A Political Statement.
Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to A Political Statement and other sites on the Internet.
Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on A Political Statement send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.

A Political Statement has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.

You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. A Political Statement"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.

If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.

Why Do Movie Theaters Sell Such Lousy Corporate Garbage Food?

At Alternate Viewpoint, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by Alternate Viewpoint and how it is used.

Log Files

Like many other Web sites, Alternate Viewpoint makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.

Cookies and Web Beacons

Alternate Viewpoint does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.

DoubleClick DART Cookie

Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on Alternate Viewpoint.

Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to Alternate Viewpoint and other sites on the Internet.

Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on Alternate Viewpoint send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.

Alternate Viewpoint has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.

You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. Alternate Viewpoint"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.

Why Do Movie Theaters Sell Such Lousy Corporate Garbage Food?

Wednesday, January 15, 2014

Confronting the Specter of Corporate and Police Spying

Log Files

Cookies and Web Beacons

DoubleClick DART Cookie

Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on A Political Statement.
Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to A Political Statement and other sites on the Internet.
Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

A Political Statement has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.

Confronting the Specter of Corporate and Police Spying

Tuesday, January 7, 2014

Senior Gambling Addiction Rates Are Soaring in America, Driven by Corporate Greed and Bad Govt. Policy

Log Files

Cookies and Web Beacons

DoubleClick DART Cookie

Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on A Political Statement.
Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to A Political Statement and other sites on the Internet.
Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

A Political Statement has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.

Senior Gambling Addiction Rates Are Soaring in America, Driven by Corporate Greed and Bad Govt. Policy

Saturday, January 4, 2014

The Global Corporate Mafia is Taking Over

Log Files

Cookies and Web Beacons

DoubleClick DART Cookie

Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on A Political Statement.
Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to A Political Statement and other sites on the Internet.
Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

A Political Statement has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.

The Global Corporate Mafia is Taking Over

Monday, December 23, 2013

How Elizabeth Warren"s Privacy Rules Will Fight the Corporate Snoops

Warren and her colleagues are fighting to chop down barriers for job seekers.

This week Sen. Elizabeth Warren and six colleagues introduced the Equal Employment for All Act, which would make it illegal for employers to disqualify job applicants based on their credit scores. It"s an admirable and important bill which deserves our support. It also gives us an opportunity to have a broader discussion about the kind of society we hope to become.

Here are six reasons to support a bill which will help all of us in the end:

1. It aids the long-term unemployed.

Long-term unemployment is at historically high levels in this country, and policymakers have done far too little for this hard-hit group of Americans. They have experienced the ongoing loss of their way of life – often accompanied by the loss of their homes, their belongings, and their sense of self-worth.

Long-term unemployment is almost always accompanied by unpaid bills, which drastically lower a person"s credit score. Today that lower credit score can render a person unemployable, leading to the kinds of heartbreaking stories described in a New York Times article on the subject earlier this year.

Instead of alleviating the problem of long-term unemployment, the use of credit scores in hiring makes it worse. On a societal level, that"s indefensible. And on an individual level, it"s inhumane.

2. It begins to right a terrible injustice.

One of the great injustices of the past five years is the way that Wall Street, whose fraud caused the current economic crisis, still holds enormous power over its victims.

We"ve seen that injustice played out in continued foreclosures, as banks evict families because their homes are worth less than the outstanding mortgage loan – thanks to the banks who created a housing bubble – and because many homeowners are unable to find adequate work as a result of the bank-created jobs recession.

We"ve seen that injustice reflected in credit card debt and other loans, whose costs have soared as the result of overly complicated contracts with hidden provisions.

And we see that injustice in the spectacle of Americans who are unable to find work as the result of foreclosures, soaring borrowing costs – and a credit-scoring system created for the banks.

This bill begins to end that pattern of injustice, by ending at least one of these practices. It"s a start.

3. It also begins to level the playing field between Wall Street and ordinary Americans.

Financial institutions enjoy extraordinary, even unprecedented power over individual Americans. A consumer"s relationship with a bank is no longer even the semblance of a contract between autonomous equals. It"s an asymmetrical relationship in which one party – the bank – can unilaterally change the terms of the agreement, in many cases leaving the consumer with no recourse.

Sen. Warren"s brainchild, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, goes a long way towards leveling this relationship. But financial institutions and other corporations still hold excessive power over individuals. One of their most powerful tools is the credit score.

The greatest tool consumers have against corporations and banks is, or should be, the ability to withhold payment when a contract isn"t honored. But a bad credit score hurts consumers in a number of ways. It makes it harder for them to find housing, it makes borrowing more expensive, and many consumers understand that it will make it harder for them to find a job – whether they are searching for one now, or (like most Americans) consider it likely that they"ll be looking for one at some point in the future.

Because of this leverage, many people are forced to passively accept injustices from misbehaving corporations. If they withhold payment, even in cases where a product was defective or services not rendered, they may find themselves unemployable.

This imbalance of power allows banks and other corporations to keep acting unjustly. That needs to change.

4. It reduces the ongoing encroachment of Big Data on our daily lives.

The computer crowd likes to say that “Information wants to be free.” We"ve learned now that it actually wants to be very, very expensive – and it"s not interested in whether you remain free. Big Data is a self-sustaining and self-expanding institution which seeks to maximize profits by finding new markets for the information it gathers.

The credit score industry is an excellent case in point. FICO and its competitors began gathering credit information for lending institutions. Once they created systems for collecting the data, their only remaining challenge was a sales challenge: who else will buy it?

That"s how Big Data becomes big.

The employer market is enormous. Even in recessionary times like these, hundreds of thousands of hiring decisions are being made. Each involves multiple candidates. Cracking this market was a major “score” for the credit score industry. And if the social and human costs of entering this new market were enormous – well, that"s not their problem, is it?

It may not be their problem. But it"s ours. And in solving it, we can also send a signal to the corporate world and the body politic: Big Data doesn"t run things – people do.

5. This credit information isn"t even useful.

Our infatuation with Big Data can also lead us to ascribe more wisdom to it than it actually possesses. This is a perfect example of that phenomenon in action. The only academic research we could find on the topic, published in the Psychologist-Manager Journal in 2012, concluded that “Predictors extracted from applicant credit reports … had no relationship with either performance appraisal ratings or termination decisions.”

Not a “weak” relationship. Not an “unproven” relationship. No relationship.

This practice creates needless misery. This bill will stop it.

6. It reaffirms our values as a society.

If credit information doesn"t predict employee performance, why use it at all? Whether consciously or not, its only purpose becomes cultural, not economic. It becomes a way for people who have jobs to avoid those who don"t. It"s a way of stigmatizing the unemployed, as if they are carriers of a terrible contagion.

We"re often tempted to look away when we see the hungry or the sick on the street. This practice does something similar, by keeping the bearers of bad luck away before it rubs off on us, too.

But that"s just superstition, and it"s not who we are. At our best, we"re a society whose citizens help one another in times of need. We"re a society that believes in equal opportunity. We"re a society that believes in the right to privacy. And we"re a society that believes people who want to work should be able to work.

Sen. Warren deserves credit for introducing this bill. So do her Senate co-sponsors: Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.). And so does Rep. Steve Cohen (TN-9), who introduced a similar bill in the House in 2011.

The people who are being hurt by these credit checks want to improve their own lives. It"s time to let them. We"ll be improving our own lives too.

How Elizabeth Warren"s Privacy Rules Will Fight the Corporate Snoops

Warren and her colleagues are fighting to chop down barriers for job seekers.

Here are six reasons to support a bill which will help all of us in the end:

1. It aids the long-term unemployed.

Instead of alleviating the problem of long-term unemployment, the use of credit scores in hiring makes it worse. On a societal level, that"s indefensible. And on an individual level, it"s inhumane.

2. It begins to right a terrible injustice.

One of the great injustices of the past five years is the way that Wall Street, whose fraud caused the current economic crisis, still holds enormous power over its victims.

We"ve seen that injustice reflected in credit card debt and other loans, whose costs have soared as the result of overly complicated contracts with hidden provisions.

And we see that injustice in the spectacle of Americans who are unable to find work as the result of foreclosures, soaring borrowing costs – and a credit-scoring system created for the banks.

This bill begins to end that pattern of injustice, by ending at least one of these practices. It"s a start.

3. It also begins to level the playing field between Wall Street and ordinary Americans.

This imbalance of power allows banks and other corporations to keep acting unjustly. That needs to change.

4. It reduces the ongoing encroachment of Big Data on our daily lives.

That"s how Big Data becomes big.

It may not be their problem. But it"s ours. And in solving it, we can also send a signal to the corporate world and the body politic: Big Data doesn"t run things – people do.

5. This credit information isn"t even useful.

Not a “weak” relationship. Not an “unproven” relationship. No relationship.

This practice creates needless misery. This bill will stop it.

6. It reaffirms our values as a society.

We"re often tempted to look away when we see the hungry or the sick on the street. This practice does something similar, by keeping the bearers of bad luck away before it rubs off on us, too.

The people who are being hurt by these credit checks want to improve their own lives. It"s time to let them. We"ll be improving our own lives too.

How Elizabeth Warren"s Privacy Rules Will Fight the Corporate Snoops

Warren and her colleagues are fighting to chop down barriers for job seekers.

Here are six reasons to support a bill which will help all of us in the end:

1. It aids the long-term unemployed.

Instead of alleviating the problem of long-term unemployment, the use of credit scores in hiring makes it worse. On a societal level, that"s indefensible. And on an individual level, it"s inhumane.

2. It begins to right a terrible injustice.

One of the great injustices of the past five years is the way that Wall Street, whose fraud caused the current economic crisis, still holds enormous power over its victims.

We"ve seen that injustice reflected in credit card debt and other loans, whose costs have soared as the result of overly complicated contracts with hidden provisions.

And we see that injustice in the spectacle of Americans who are unable to find work as the result of foreclosures, soaring borrowing costs – and a credit-scoring system created for the banks.

This bill begins to end that pattern of injustice, by ending at least one of these practices. It"s a start.

3. It also begins to level the playing field between Wall Street and ordinary Americans.

This imbalance of power allows banks and other corporations to keep acting unjustly. That needs to change.

4. It reduces the ongoing encroachment of Big Data on our daily lives.

That"s how Big Data becomes big.

It may not be their problem. But it"s ours. And in solving it, we can also send a signal to the corporate world and the body politic: Big Data doesn"t run things – people do.

5. This credit information isn"t even useful.

Not a “weak” relationship. Not an “unproven” relationship. No relationship.

This practice creates needless misery. This bill will stop it.

6. It reaffirms our values as a society.

We"re often tempted to look away when we see the hungry or the sick on the street. This practice does something similar, by keeping the bearers of bad luck away before it rubs off on us, too.

The people who are being hurt by these credit checks want to improve their own lives. It"s time to let them. We"ll be improving our own lives too.

Monday, November 25, 2013

Revealed: How Corporate Spooks Spy on Nonprofit Activist Groups

At Those Damn Liars, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by Those Damn Liars and how it is used.

Log Files

Like many other Web sites, Those Damn Liars makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.

Cookies and Web Beacons

Those Damn Liars does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.

DoubleClick DART Cookie

Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on Those Damn Liars.
Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to Those Damn Liars and other sites on the Internet.
Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on Those Damn Liars send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.

Those Damn Liars has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.

You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. Those Damn Liars"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.

Revealed: How Corporate Spooks Spy on Nonprofit Activist Groups

Wednesday, November 13, 2013

Obama as the “New JFK”: “Pragmatic Liberalism in the Service of Corporate Capitalism”

As the anniversary of President John F. Kennedy’s assassination approaches, the media will be awash with comparisons between JFK and Barack Obama. The two do, indeed, have much in common. “President Obama has moved in the same doctrinally and politically imposed corporate and imperial grooves as Kennedy.”

Explaining why his hero Barack Obama was not invited to a liberal rally honoring the 50^th anniversary of the 1963 March on Washington last August 24^th (four days before the exact anniversary date of August 28^th), leading black Democratic Party activist and MSNBC talk show host Rev. Al Sharpton explained that Obama is “the new John F. Kennedy (JFK), not the new [Dr. Martin Luther] King.”[1]

“A lot of the media is trying to make [Obama] the new King,” Sharpton said around the same time, adding that “he’s the result of King. He’s the President Kennedy of today, the President Johnson of today.”[2]

Sharpton’s analogy was more substantively correct than he knew, but in ways he would not likely go far to admit.

“Pragmatic Liberalism in the Service of Corporate Capitalism”

Let’s take a look back at the real and original President Kennedy. It is an apt moment for such a retrospective, as liberal Kennedy worship and nostalgia spikes anew with the coming 50-year anniversary of JFK’s assassination in Dallas, Texas on November 22, 2013.

The major problem with Sharpton’s comparison is his instinctive liberal assumption that it’s a good thing to be “the new John F. Kennedy.”

“The role played by twentieth-century Presidents,” political scientist Bruce Mirroff noted 37 years ago, “has been characteristically conservative. ‘Liberal’ as well as ‘conservative’ Presidents…have bent their strongest efforts, not to alter, but to preserve America’s dominant institutions. Whatever their professed sympathies, their actions have served, not to redistribute wealth and power, but to perpetuate existing inequalities… [serving as] central figures in the maintenance of established [hierarchical] socioeconomic arrangements.”

As Miroff demonstrated in his forgotten classic Pragmatic Illusions: The Presidential Politics of John F. Kennedy (1976), the liberal icon JFK was no exception to the rule. He lined up consistently on the conservative, that is, power-friendly side of each of what Dr. King called “the triple evils that are interrelated”: racism (deeply and institutionally understood), economic exploitation (capitalism), and U.S. militarism.

More than a decade before neoliberal Democrats emerged to explicitly steer the Democratic Party to the corporate center, JFK’s frequently declared sympathies for the poor and working class took a back seat in his White house to “the real determinants of policy: political calculation and economic doctrine.” As Mirroff explained, political calculation “led Kennedy to appease the corporate giants and their allies in government.” Economic doctrine “told him that the key to the expansion and health of the economy was the health and expansion of those same corporate giants. The architects of Kennedy’s ‘New Economics’ liked to portray it as the technically sophisticated and politically neutral management of a modern industrial economy. It is more accurately portrayed as a pragmatic liberalism in the service of corporate capitalism” (Miroff, 1976) Further:

“His wage guidelines, and other efforts at terminating labor-management conflict over the distribution of income, fit neatly with business’s longstanding objective of holding wage costs steady. His liberalization of depreciation allowances furnished business with a tax break which it had sought unsuccessfully from the Eisenhower administration. His proposed reduction in corporate income and personal income taxes in the higher brackets approached tax reductions earlier proposed by the National Association of Manufacturers and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Corporate executives may not have had Kennedy’s ear, but the functional result was not so different than if they had. Economic doctrine and political calculation were enough to make him respond more often to business desires than to those of the economic constituencies that actually supported him” (Miroff, 1976).

The regressive nature of JFK’s “New Economics’ was cloaked by his recurrent, much-publicized spats with certain members of the business community (the executives of U.S. Steel above all), his repeated statements of concern for labor and the poor, and his claim to advance a purely “technical” and “pragmatic” economic agenda that elevated “practical management” and administrative expertise above the “grand warfare of ideologies” (Miroff, 1976).

Caucasian-Friendly Caution and Calculation

JFK inhabited the same centrist, cautious, cunning, and “pragmatic” place on racism, the first of Dr. King’s “triple evils.” He found it politically useful to intervene on Dr. Martin Luther King’s behalf during the latter’s jailing in the election year of 1960 and, later, to wrap himself in the aura of racial progress and equality by offering some partial and belated federal protections to the Civil Rights Movement (CRM). But the Kennedy administration worked hard to divide and dilute the CRM, seeking to channel it into to staid and narrow legal and electoral grooves. It gave some elementary shelter to activists and southern blacks only when John Kennedy and his brother and Attorney General Bobby Kennedy calculated that rabid white southern reaction was undermining their ability to sell the United States’ capitalist and imperial concept of “democracy” in Washington Cold War contest with the Soviet Union for the allegiances of the predominantly non-white Third World.

Subsequent silly and elitist “Mississippi Burning” revisionism notwithstanding, the Kennedy administration was no great friend of the struggle for black equality. Its response to the Freedom Movement was dominated by the tension between two competing political calculations: (i) the threat of politically alienating white Americans, above all traditionally Democratic white Southerners; (ii) the risk of losing Third World hearts and minds in the supposed U.S. struggle to advance “freedom and democracy,” falsely conflated with capitalism and subjugation to U.S. influence, against supposed Soviet-sponsored “communism” (national independence and social justice in the “developing world”). The experience and struggles of black Americans were not an especially relevant concern. When southern racist authorities managed to defeat the black struggle for equality without politically problematic and embarrassing violence (as in Albany Georgia, in 1962), the Kennedy administration was happy to withhold protection from King and his fellow activists. Along the way, the Kennedy brothers were inordinately obsessed with alleged Communist connections to King and the CRM and approved racist FBI director J. Edgar Hoover’s regular and relentless police state surveillance, smearing, and infiltration of the movement. (Sitkoff, 1981; Garrow, 1986)

Deadly Imperial Arrogance

JFK’s foreign policy record is militantly imperial and militarist, contrary to subsequent liberal hagiographers’ curious effort to re-invent him as a peacenik. That record includes the Kennedy administration’s decision to dramatically and dangerously escalate the international arms race after Kennedy campaigned on the deceptive claim that the U.S. was on the wrong side of a mythical Soviet-American “missile gap.” Kennedy’s nuclear machismo helped bring the world to the literal brink of annihilation on at least one occasion, to be examined in some detail in the next section of this essay.

Referring to the U.S. as “watchtower on the walls of [global] freedom,” JFK undertook numerous provocative actions meant to overthrow the popular revolutionary government of Cuba. He imposed, equipped, and otherwise supported numerous Latin-American dictatorships and oligarchies in the name of “democracy.” As Noam Chomsky noted in his important 1993 study Rethinking Camelot: JFK, the Vietnam War and US Political Culture, “One of the most significant legacies left by the [Kennedy] Administration was its 1962 decision to shift the mission of the [U.S.-funded, equipped, and trained] Latin American military from ‘hemispheric defense’ to ‘internal security,’” leading, in the words of Kennedy’s top Latin American counter-insurgency planer (Charles Maechling) to “direct [U.S.] complicity” in “the methods of Heinrich Himmler’s extermination squads.” The shift to deadly internal repression was a natural corollary to Kennedy’s export-promoting” Alliance for Progress “development program,” which primarily benefited Latin American elites while drastically increasing Latin American unemployment. (Chomsky, 1993).

When he was assassinated, the CIA and JFK’s advisers were working with his approval to overthrow a democratically elected government and install a fascist military dictatorship in Brazil. The plan was carried out months later. As Chomsky notes, “Brazil had a moderately populist-democratic government in the early 1960s. The Kennedy administration organized a military coup that imposed a neo-Nazi national security state that was the first of the plague that then spread throughout the continent to Chile, Argentina, Central America and then became one big massacre” (Chomsky, 2007).

A U.S.-sponsored coup in Chile (overthrowing the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende on September 11, 1973) was left to Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger. It might well have occurred under Kennedy’s successor Lyndon Johnson but for the Kennedy CIA’s effort to subvert the 1964 Chilean elections since, as Kennedy’s National Security Council (NSC) explained, “We are not prepared to risk a Socialist or FRAP [Allende] victory, for fear of nationalization of U.S. investments.”(Chomsky, 1993)

Kennedy epitomized the conditional nature of “democracy” as a U.S. foreign policy objective when he remarked that while the U.S. would prefer democratic regimes abroad, it will choose “a [pro-American dictator] Trujillo” over “a [“anti-American” dictator] Castro” if those were the only choices. “It is necessary only to add,” Noam Chomsky noted in 1991, that Kennedy’s “concept of ‘a Castro’ was very broad, extending to anyone who raises problems for the ‘rich men dwelling at peace with their habitations,’ who are to rule the world according to [Winston] Churchill’s aphorism, while enjoying the benefits of its human and material resources.” (Chomsky, 1991).

Meanwhile, Kennedy “raised the level of [U.S.] attack [on Indochina] from international terrorism to outright aggression in 1961-62,” justifying the use of U.S. airpower to napalm social revolutionaries, defoliate Vietnamese countryside, and “kill a lot of innocent peasants” (Roger Hillsman) with the false claims that “we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless [Soviet-Marxist] conspiracy” and that failure to stop “Communism” in Vietnam would open the gates to Soviet world domination. Contrary to subsequent myths trumpeted by JFK-worshippers like Oliver Stone and Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., Kennedy had no intent of pulling back from his mass-murderous assault until full U.S “victory” was attained (Chomsky, 1993).

One Minute to Midnight

Perhaps the most nauseating claim made by members of the liberal dead Kennedys cargo cult holds that JFK heroically saved humanity from nuclear annihilation during the Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962. It is true that many in President Kennedy’s inner NSC (“ExComm”) circle favored responding to the Soviet Union’s placement of missiles in Cuba in ways that might well have sparked World War III. But Kennedy’s aggressive arms escalation and his utter disregard (inherited from the Eisenhower administration) for Soviet efforts towards disarmament provoked the volatile Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev’s mad nuclear gambit in the first place. And Kennedy’s determination not to look weak (a key political calculation in the wake of his Bay of Pigs humiliation the previous year) and to defend America’s supposed right to surround the Soviet Union with nuclear weapons brought the world One Minute to Midnight – the title of a leading recent history of the crisis, penned by Washington Post correspondent Michael Dobbs.

Considerably more aghast than Kennedy was at the prospect of thermonuclear obliteration (JFK coolly calculated the chances for WWIII at 50%), Khrushchev did far more than his American counterpart to end the crisis. So, for that matter, did Soviet submarine flotilla commander Vasili Arkhipov. Under the waters of the western mid-Atlantic Ocean, Arkhipov blocked the surrounded and exhausted Soviet submarine captain Valentin Savitsky’s determination to launch a tactical nuclear torpedo at the U.S. Navy in the early evening of Saturday, October 27, 1962. Arkhipov’s fateful action came as Kennedy continued to dither in responding to Khrushchev’s offer much earlier in the day (at 10:18 AM) to dismantle and withdraw Russia’s missiles if the U.S. agreed not to invade Cuba and to remove its nuclear Jupiter missiles from Turkey (obsolete weapons the U.S. already planned to scrap). The sticking point for Kennedy and his team was that the U.S. would appear to have been humiliated and countermanded by the Soviets – and by global public opinion, which seemed likely to perceive Khrushchev’s proposed trade as elementarily fair – if it publicly agreed to take down its warheads in Turkey (Dobbs, 2008).

Civilization is lucky to have survived the delay. In the lethal interim between Khrushchev’s offer, Kennedy’s counter (excluding a public retreat on Turkey but including a private and “confidential” assurance on removing the Jupiters), and Khrushchev’s acceptance (at 2 AM, October 28^th, Washington time):

* Arkhipov pre-empted the firing of a tactical nuclear weapon from an ailing diesel Soviet submarine south of Bermuda

* A U.S. U2 spy was destroyed, its pilot (Rudolph Anderson) killed, over Cuba, by a Soviet missile.

* Another US pilot (Chuck Maultsby) mistakenly crossed into Soviet airspace, sending Russian fighter jets into the skies.

* The U.S. conducted a massive nuclear bomb test in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.

* Dozens of U.S. bombers loaded with high-yield thermonuclear weapons roamed the skies at all times; their pilots had full technical capacity to launch World War III on their own accord.

* The full giant U.S. giant nuclear arsenal was place on the highest and highly accident-prone alert, with 162 nuclear missiles and 1,2000 airplanes carrying 2,858 nuclear weapons “cocked” and “ready to fire.” (Dobbs. 2008).

Behind ExComm fears that Khrushchev’s offer amounted to “diplomatic blackmail” lay the real Kennedy administration determination: threatening to blow up the world in order to defend and preserve the United States’ right to keep on the Soviet Union’s border missiles they had already decided to take down. That’s some interesting context for the concluding sentence of Michael Dobbs’ widely heralded account: “The real good fortune is that men as sane and level-headed as John Fitzgerald Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev occupied the White House and the Kremlin in October 1962.”(Dobbs, 2008)

Right.

“JFK in Sepia”

While its hard to see a nuclear crisis like October 1962 in his future (even though he has done his part to provoke Russia around missile-related issues and other matters), President Obama has moved in the same doctrinally and politically imposed corporate and imperial grooves as Kennedy, proving along with George W. Bush that Miroff’s assessment of U.S. presidents, both “liberal” and “conservative” (“their actions have served, not to redistribute wealth and power, but to perpetuate existing inequalities”), holds for the current millennium as well as the last century. This is something a large number of authors and commentators (me included) have documented at great length. I will not burden readers here with the depressing details.

There is nothing new about the Obama-Kennedy analogy, of course. Michael Hureaux, the black Seattle-based Left poet and activist, sensed the dark side of the Kennedy-Obama analogy from the start. The Obama candidacy, Hureaux noted nearly a year before the Obama White House ascendency, was about “restor[ing] faith in the imperial project” by putting an eloquent black leader at its nominal head, to function as a “JFK in sepia.” As Hureaux observed in the comments section attached to a haunting Dissident Voice essay by Juan Santos, titled “Barack Obama and the End of Racism:”

“I’m watching all kinds of people who I’d previously thought had some critical thinking skills cave under this Obamania business. I had a hunch this was coming when I watched his speech at the [Democratic Party] convention four years ago, my wife and I both sat and took it in and looked at each other and said, almost word for word, ‘He’s good, he’s very good.’ The rakish JFK style jabs, the clearly studied rhetorical grace. What better gift to the empire than JFK in sepia? All last year, numerous discussions with people from the old new left who told us, ‘He’ll never get a shot at it because of racist US etc.,’ to which we maintained, ‘But what better figure to have out there than one to restore faith in the imperial project, but someone with a black face?”(Santos, 2008)

Last Spring, the eminent left historian Perry Anderson noted of Obama that “Once invested with the authority of office, looks and aplomb have generated a celebrity ruler—color relaying style to yield a JFK for a multi-cultural age, attracting much the same kind of engouement in the local intelligentsia and its counterparts abroad… Attempts by enthusiasts to talk of the [Obama] administration’s achievement as a second New Deal miss the comparator. Its egalitarian sheen belongs with the callisthenic gauze of the New Frontier.” (Anderson, 2013).

Besides also being a relatively young, agile, telegenic, articulate, Harvard-educated, and popular with the intellectual community that Republicans presidents have tended to disdain, Obama has, like JFK, shown a remarkable ability to combine outwardly progressive and idealistic rhetoric with steady and calculated service to the unelected and interrelated dictatorships of money and empire. Beneath his clever, fake-progressive branding, he has functioned on the cunning, power-serving side of each of King’s “triple evils” – and of other and related evils as well (including the ever more pressing scourge of capitalist-generated environmental catastrophe). Like all his predecessors, Obama has “bent [his] strongest efforts, not to alter, but to preserve America’s dominant institutions.” A classic example is health care, which he managed to keep under private financial and corporate command with a “market-oriented” “reform” that keeps the giant insurance and drug firms and their Wall Street backers in core cost-inflating, deficit-fueling control of the nation’s health care system.

Of course, Obama is a “pragmatic” multi-cultural faux-progressive president for the neoliberal era, in a period of American decline. This is different from Kennedy’s fortuitous positioning at the twin peaks of the corporate-liberal New Deal era and American global power. “In the early 1960s,” Chomsky noted in 1993, “the US remained the world’s dominant power and could afford to flaunt prospects of ‘great societies at home and grand designs abroad’ (Walter Heller); 20 years later, the great societies would have to go” (Chomsky, 1993). Fifty years later, the “pragmatic” political considerations and economic doctrine imposed by concentrated wealth combine with the continuing costs (for the many) and profits (for the few) of empire to mean that a first only half-white president atop the party of Franklin Roosevelt governs to the right of Richard Nixon and is enlisted in the neoliberal assault on both the New Deal and the Great Society. The enlistment is consistent with his “deeply conservative”[3]world view and background, clear from the start to those willing to look beneath the standard populism-manipulating campaign rhetoric and candidate marketing. This has not prevented him from being celebrated as a chosen man of peace and justice by liberals and progressives who have projected peace and justice fantasies onto him in the present as many of them often do onto JFK in the past.

“Really Good At Killing People”

It is offensive that Barack Obama spoke last summer at the exact same time on the exact same day (August 28^th) in the exact same place (the steps of the Lincoln Memorial) occupied by King when the great American democratic socialist civil rights leader delivered his “I Have a Dream” speech in 1963. Having the nominal head of the state-capitalist and white-supremacist U.S. empire speak, accompanied by former imperial commanders-in-chief and fellow leading corporate neoliberal Democrats Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, in the symbolic same slot as the great peace and justice activist Dr. Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. was a deep insult to the grassroots Civil Rights, antiwar and anti-poverty movements of the 1960s. Adding further affront to the insult, Obama used his time in King’s space to continue his longstanding practice of blaming poor blacks for their own position at the bottom of the U.S. socioeconomic order.

In a fascinating statement on the part of a Nobel Peace Prize winner, Barack Obama rightly told his aides last year that drones make him “really good at killing people”[4]. He had a point. According to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, the CIA drone program has conducted 378 strikes in its ten-year history. Of those attacks, 326 (87 percent) were ordered under the current president and are classified as “Obama strikes.” The total number of people killed by drones is estimated to be between 2,528 and 3,648. Civilian casualties are conservatively estimated to have run as high as 948 [5], making the president “really good at killing” noncombatants.

Defiling History

John F. Kennedy would never have been invited to the speakers’ podium on August 28, 1963, for good reasons. Fifty years later, the “new John F. Kennedy” – a man who has relentlessly served the very evils King dedicated his last years to resisting, in accord with his job description atop the nation that King rightly identified in 1967 as “the leading purveyor of violence in the world today” (the description still holds) – had no business pretending that he and his fellow Democratic presidents could appropriately wrap themselves in the robe of the great peace and justice leader.

Sharpton was right to note that the far better 1960s Obama analogy is JFK (and even LBJ), not MLK. But if he really grasped or cared about the full extent of the differences between the presidents (both dead and living) and the activist, if he really sensed how vile those presidents and the system they represent (including its deceptive “one-party, two-faction candidate-producing mechanism” [Chomsky, 1993]) are, he would not have been content merely to leave “the new John F. Kennedy” off the list of invitees to his August 24^th rally. He would also and more importantly have led a march against the August 28^th Obama-Carter-Clinton commemoration/desecration, which so defiled the memory and meaning of the March on Washington.

Paul Street is the author of many books including The Empire’s New Clothes: Barack Obama in the Real World of Power (Paradigm, 2010). His next book isThey Rule: The 1% v. Democracy (2014).

Secondary Sources

Perry Anderson, “Homeland,” New Left Review 81 (May-June 2013)

Noam Chomsky, Deterring Democracy (New York: Hill and Wang, 1991)

Noam Chomsky, Rethinking Camelot: JFK, the Vietnam War, and US Political Culture (Boston, MA: South End, 1993)

Noam Chomsky, What We Say Goes: Conversations on U.S. Power in a Changing World (New York: Metropolitan, 2007)

Michael Dobbs, One Minute to Midnight: Kennedy, Khrushchev, and Castro on the Brink of Nuclear War (New York: Alfred Knopf, 2008).

David Garrow, Bearing the Cross: Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 1986)

Bruce Miroff, Pragmatic Illusions: The Presidential Politics of John F. Kennedy(New York: Longman, 1976)

Juan Santos, “The End of Racism,” Dissident Voice, February 13, 2008;

Harvard Sitkoff, The Struggle for Black Equality, 1954-1980 (New York: Hill and Wang, 1981)

Notes

1. http://m.staugustine.com/news/national-news/2013-08-27/king-anniversary-puts-spotlight-obama-civil-rights

2. http://washingtonexaminer.com/al-sharpton-obama-is-the-new-kennedy-because-of-dr.-king/article/2534813

3. Larissa MacFarquhar, “The Conciliator: Where is Barack Obama Coming From?,” The New Yorker (May 7, 2007). As MacFarquhar concluded after extensive interviews with Obama and research into his past,: “In his view of history, in his respect for tradition, in his skepticism that the world can be changed any way but very, very slowly, Obama is deeply conservative.”

4. Jay Busbee, “New Book: Obama Told Aides that Drones Make Him ‘Really Good at Killing People,’ “ Yahoo News (November 4, 2013),http://news.yahoo.com/new-book–obama-told-aides-that-drones-make-him–really-good-at-killing-people–144734667.html

5 http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/category/projects/drones/drones-pakistan/

Global Research

Obama as the “New JFK”: “Pragmatic Liberalism in the Service of Corporate Capitalism”

Friday, November 8, 2013

Tuesday, November 5, 2013

Beware: Huge Media Companies Are Selling Corporate Ideology as the "New American Center"

Log Files

Cookies and Web Beacons

DoubleClick DART Cookie

Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on Alternate Viewpoint.

Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to Alternate Viewpoint and other sites on the Internet.

Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

Alternate Viewpoint has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.

You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. Alternate Viewpoint"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.

Beware: Huge Media Companies Are Selling Corporate Ideology as the "New American Center"

Saturday, October 19, 2013

Facebook Building Walled Corporate City For Employees

Via Valleywag, Silicon Valley workers will have the opportunity to disappear inside Facebook, for good:

If Facebook staffers opt to move in to work, they’ll be getting a very sweet deal out of it: the Anton Menlo project includes all the comforts of suburbia and college combined. What 20-something engineer wouldn’t want to live in a walled compound?

Work is only five minutes away—and thanks to mediocre or non-existent public transit options, no one from The Outside will be able to easily visit. It’ll be like you never existed on Earth before joining Facebook.

To really finesse that You’ve-been-removed-from-the rest of society vibe, a six-foot wall surrounds most of the project.

The post Facebook Building Walled Corporate City For Employees appeared first on disinformation.

disinformation

Facebook Building Walled Corporate City For Employees

Articles and More!

Wednesday, April 2, 2014

Cartoon: Fun with corporate conscience clauses

Wednesday, February 26, 2014

Why Do Movie Theaters Sell Such Lousy Corporate Garbage Food?

Related Stories

Why Do Movie Theaters Sell Such Lousy Corporate Garbage Food?

Why Do Movie Theaters Sell Such Lousy Corporate Garbage Food?

Wednesday, January 15, 2014

Confronting the Specter of Corporate and Police Spying

Tuesday, January 7, 2014

Senior Gambling Addiction Rates Are Soaring in America, Driven by Corporate Greed and Bad Govt. Policy

Saturday, January 4, 2014

The Global Corporate Mafia is Taking Over

Monday, December 23, 2013

How Elizabeth Warren"s Privacy Rules Will Fight the Corporate Snoops

Related Stories

How Elizabeth Warren"s Privacy Rules Will Fight the Corporate Snoops

Related Stories

How Elizabeth Warren"s Privacy Rules Will Fight the Corporate Snoops

Related Stories

Monday, November 25, 2013

Revealed: How Corporate Spooks Spy on Nonprofit Activist Groups

Wednesday, November 13, 2013

Obama as the “New JFK”: “Pragmatic Liberalism in the Service of Corporate Capitalism”

Friday, November 8, 2013

Top Censored Stories Corporate Media Won’t Dare Touch | Interview with Mickey Huff

Tuesday, November 5, 2013

Beware: Huge Media Companies Are Selling Corporate Ideology as the "New American Center"

Saturday, October 19, 2013

Facebook Building Walled Corporate City For Employees