I was perusing my Facebook page this morning and a couple of items were posted that were Relevant To My Interests.
To start was a Daily Kos article by Bob Sloan regarding ALEC and prison labour. Long story short, very nearly every American corporation has been turning to a new cheap source of labour-our prison population: what with 'illegal' immigration taking a downward turn, and eliminating that labour pool; and the stigma associated with outsourcing. The problem is pervasive and the use of prison labour is so integrated into business-with almost every corporation you can name using some prison labour somewhere, it's nearly impossible to avoid supporting it if you want to live a quasi-normal life. Boycotts are off: you can't avoid the situation.
Just the same it's important to at least know what the problem is, so as to pass the knowledge around. Perhaps a large number of people can say to the myriad of companies involved 'We see what you did there' and bring some pressure to bear. Obviously, given the level of integration of this thing, boycotts are impractical; so another approach has to be brought to bear. I would suggest framing it as a moral issue. After all, if it's good enough for conservative groups to try to superimpose their morality regarding various unimportant issues that aren't their business, anyway, then it's good enough for actual leftists to bring up what amounts to enslaving and exploiting the prison population so as to reap profits for a few. I'd count this as way more egregious and more of a blight on society than, say, gay marriage.
That kind of leads into a second Item of Interest: An article from 24/7 Wall Street regarding the most and least peaceful American States. Now this site claims to provide 'Insightful Analysis and Commentary for US and Global Investors'-not exactly a Bolshevik, or even 'liberal' screed, I would say. But here they are, presenting an article that posits some points that I found relevant: More 'peaceful' States have lower police to population ratios, better access to basic services, less violence (obviously) and cost incurred in dealing with violence. Not pointed out in the statistics presented, but inferred in the article is that economic equity also figures into the 'peacefulness' equation:
Why would this be of concern to yr average capitalist? Well, at least some of this lot have figured out that if the people think they're doing well and they have enough to maintain something of a decent life, then they tend to be somewhat less inclined to, say Occupy things. Franklin Roosevelt, of course, doped this out long ago-which informed his response to the Great Depression. The problem with all this, is that not all capitalist types are keen to pay a price for being rich. They want it all. And they're gonna take it from you.
Not exactly the moral high ground, there, is it? Not that the authors of this piece are particularly concerned with that. It's more a matter of looking after their own self-interest; and ultimately maintaining their wealth and power. That's something that bears watching closely-this sort of thing is substituted for actual reform of the system; and the majority of the general public will buy into it.
To start was a Daily Kos article by Bob Sloan regarding ALEC and prison labour. Long story short, very nearly every American corporation has been turning to a new cheap source of labour-our prison population: what with 'illegal' immigration taking a downward turn, and eliminating that labour pool; and the stigma associated with outsourcing. The problem is pervasive and the use of prison labour is so integrated into business-with almost every corporation you can name using some prison labour somewhere, it's nearly impossible to avoid supporting it if you want to live a quasi-normal life. Boycotts are off: you can't avoid the situation.
Just the same it's important to at least know what the problem is, so as to pass the knowledge around. Perhaps a large number of people can say to the myriad of companies involved 'We see what you did there' and bring some pressure to bear. Obviously, given the level of integration of this thing, boycotts are impractical; so another approach has to be brought to bear. I would suggest framing it as a moral issue. After all, if it's good enough for conservative groups to try to superimpose their morality regarding various unimportant issues that aren't their business, anyway, then it's good enough for actual leftists to bring up what amounts to enslaving and exploiting the prison population so as to reap profits for a few. I'd count this as way more egregious and more of a blight on society than, say, gay marriage.
That kind of leads into a second Item of Interest: An article from 24/7 Wall Street regarding the most and least peaceful American States. Now this site claims to provide 'Insightful Analysis and Commentary for US and Global Investors'-not exactly a Bolshevik, or even 'liberal' screed, I would say. But here they are, presenting an article that posits some points that I found relevant: More 'peaceful' States have lower police to population ratios, better access to basic services, less violence (obviously) and cost incurred in dealing with violence. Not pointed out in the statistics presented, but inferred in the article is that economic equity also figures into the 'peacefulness' equation:
Hawaii(6th most peaceful state) has one of the best economies in the country. Poverty is nearly non existent in the state — Hawaii has a poverty rate of just 10% and one of the highest levels of income equality in the country. According to Gallup’s State of the States report, Hawaii has the fourth-highest level of basic access to necessities. The state also has the longest life expectancy in the country at 81.5 years.Now this is interesting in that all these things cited in the article would be considered 'socialism' by your average 'loudmouth' conservative-AKA a neo-con stooge. The funny thing is that Hawaii is and incredibly expensive place to live; and yet it's liveable for the majority of the population. Less peaceful states tend to be paradises of neo-conservativism: Arizona and Texas, for example.
Why would this be of concern to yr average capitalist? Well, at least some of this lot have figured out that if the people think they're doing well and they have enough to maintain something of a decent life, then they tend to be somewhat less inclined to, say Occupy things. Franklin Roosevelt, of course, doped this out long ago-which informed his response to the Great Depression. The problem with all this, is that not all capitalist types are keen to pay a price for being rich. They want it all. And they're gonna take it from you.
Not exactly the moral high ground, there, is it? Not that the authors of this piece are particularly concerned with that. It's more a matter of looking after their own self-interest; and ultimately maintaining their wealth and power. That's something that bears watching closely-this sort of thing is substituted for actual reform of the system; and the majority of the general public will buy into it.
No comments:
Post a Comment