President Trump, the Republican Party and the Parrington Question

by Nomad

Most of you have probably never heard of Vernon Parrington. I know I hadn't until I stumbled upon an interesting quote. That's pretty remarkable because, in our grandparent's time, historian Parrington occupied a special place, particularly among the progressive-minded.

The Parrington Question

This Midwestern educator was also the author of the three-volume Main Currents in American Thought (1927) which went on to win the 1928 Pulitzer Prize for History  As his biography reminds us, for two decades this historical examination and analysis was one of the most influential books for American historians.

Progressive history was a set of related assumptions and attitudes, which inspired the first great flowering of professional American scholarship in history...His progressive interpretation of American history was highly influential in the 1920s and 1930s and helped define modern liberalism in the United States. After receiving overwhelming praise and exerting enormous influence among intellectuals in the 1930s and 1940s, Parrington's ideas fell out of fashion before 1950.

The Bottom Line: A New Reason Why it Pays Corporations to be Socially Responsible

  by Nomad

A recent study suggests that corporations that take an active interest in social cause may increase the work performance of the employees.

Some economists are still asking whether corporations should be getting themselves involved in social issues at all.

Albert Einstein once said that it was "every man's obligation to put back into the world at least the equivalent of what he takes out of it."

Duty and obligations aside, a new study by the University of Southampton, may give business owners an even more practical reason to work on social causes. It can increase productivity by up to 30 per cent.

The Selfish Benefits of Giving

Dr Mirco Tonin, the lead author of the study, said that  while the use of bonus and stock options have long been used as an incentive to improve worker performance, there's another lesser-known motivating factor.When workers are given a social incentive such as a charitable donation linked to their job, says, Tonin,  performance increases by an average of 13 percent, rising to 30 per cent among those who are initially the least productive.

"Our results provide empirical support for the growing recognition that some workers are also motivated by advancing social causes through their efforts."

The study also found that  performance was enhanced to a greater degree when workers could decide how much of their wages they wished to contribute.   More than half of the study participants chose to give a proportion of their pay to the charity they choose when the donation were optional.

"We find that offering subjects some discretion in choosing their own payment scheme leads to a substantial improvement in performance," says Dr Tonin. "This suggests that firms willing to introduce corporate giving programs may want to consider giving employees the opportunity to 'opt in.'"

The study Corporate Philanthropy and Productivity: Evidence from an Online Real Effort Experiment will be published in the forthcoming edition of Management Science.

The Best Supreme Court Money Can Buy

by Nomad

The disgrace of the Supreme Court's infatuation with corporations will, unfortunately, leave a stain on American justice long after the conservative Justices have retired.

The Alliance for Justice, (AFJ) an umbrella organization representing "a broad array of groups committed to progressive values and the creation of an equitable, just, and free society" has called the Supreme Court out for its unprecedented judgements favoring corporations.

With decision after decision coming down on the side of big business, the Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts has proven itself to be willing and eager to twist the law to favor powerful corporate interests over everyday Americans.

The Supreme Court has clearly departed from its mandate to interpret the Constitution  and has taken upon itself to establish activist policies. 

In just the last few years, the Court has radically rewritten laws in order to shield big business from liability, insulate corporate interests from environmental and antitrust regulation, make it easier for companies to discriminate against women and the elderly, and enable powerful interests to flood our election process with special interest dollars. Fairness has been thrown out the window. The 1% keep winning while the 99% keep losing.

Its website lists the Court's infamous record of using the law to protect corporations. These are less widely known cases compared to the notorious Citizens United case or the recent Hobby Lobby decision. Nevertheless the legal precedents they set will have a negative impact for years to come.

Of Coaches and Presidents: How the Corporatization of Universities Destroys Higher Education

by Nomad

Here's an info-graphic that blew my mind- which isn't all that easy to blow anymore.

The accompanying article explains:

Based on data drawn from media reports and state salary databases, the ranks of the highest-paid active public employees include 27 football coaches, 13 basketball coaches, one hockey coach, and 10 dorks who aren't even in charge of a team.

However, the writer cautions about jumping to conclusions. The salaries are generally drawn from money made from sporting events, rather than from the taxpayers. The rebuttal often heard when it comes to coaching salaries is that the system pays for itself.

Nevertheless, you should still be concerned.

The Madwoman of Chaillot: Truth Never Goes Out of Fashion

By Nomad
Don't you think it's time to take a small sanity break? I know I need a moment to breathe. And Sunday is a good day for reflection. So, I wanted to share with you a bit of thoughtful entertainment. It might bring you  a bit of solace, perspective and perhaps even a smile.

The Madwoman of Chaillot was written by the French playwright, Jean Giraudoux, in 1943 but you'd never know it. (Sadly Giraudoux died before the play was performed on stage.)

The message of the play really hasn't aged a bit. Perhaps it is even more suitable today than it in the time it was written.
The French charm is definitely there and nobody handles this kind of satire comedy quite in the same way as the French.

The plot is pretty simple. One day at a Parisian cafe, a group of strangers meet. These are not ordinary men by any measure. They represent- in various ways- the embodiment of modern evil in the human form of bankers, industrialists, militarists etc. (Chief baddie in the film version was effortlessly played by none-other then Yul Brynner.)

They have come to form a new corporation, though they haven't a name or even a product. To aid them in this a prospector arrives who convinces them that under Paris there are vast oil reserves. It is, he tells them, there for the taking. There's only the small matter of destroying a city to get to it.

Enter Countess Aurelia, the madwoman of Chaillot- a local slightly eccentric neighborhood character. By accident, at the same cafe, she uncovers the plot, She hatches her own brilliant scheme to set the world back on its proper course. Her practical solution? Round up and exterminate of all of the evil people of the world. 

Although there are so many great lines in the play, I have taken two selections from the film version made in 1969, starring Katherine Hepburn in the title role. The film version is unfortunately flawed, in desperate need of editing, I'm afraid. Nevertheless, it is worth watching if you find the film and the time to watch it. 

In one scene, the Countess is made aware of the problem- that the world is not happy. When the Countess learns about the cabal and their plans, she is not impressed. "What a wretched world they live in. So unlike ours."

The people of the neighborhood agree that time has come to reveal to the madwoman the truth, that things are in a right mess and the world has been taken over by people like the group in the cafe. 

It begins with the line "Countess if only you knew... Shall we tell her?"

Incidentally the role of The Rag picker is played by Danny Kaye. A surprisingly good performance, I thought.

In the second scene, the Countess has been informed by one of her equally mad friends, Countess Josephine, played by Dame Edith Evans, that you can't go around exterminating people willy-nilly. ("They'll be missed and we'll all be fined. They fine you for the least little thing nowadays.") 

Countess Josephine- who represents the Justice system with all its flaws and solemn nonsense- tells the Countess that her idea of removing all of the evil people in the world is indeed practical.. providing they've all had a trial.

Countess: A trial?
Josephine: Certainly. You can't kill anybody without a trial. That's elementary. "No man shall be deprived of his life, liberty and property without due process of law."

(Given the state of things at the moment with Gitmo, midnight "renditions," the abolition of habeus corpus and drone strikes based on kill-lists, those are painful lines.)

Despite the apparent rigidity of the law, you can get around most obstacles through inane loopholes. By the use of several of these conveniences, Josephine and the Countess come up with a solution. 

Josephine advises:

"You can summon the defendants three times- mentally, if you like- and if they don't appear, the court may designate an attorney to represent them."

When the Countess tells her that she doesn't know any lawyers, Josephine dismisses her concerns by explaining to her:

"A defense is like baptism. Absolutely indispensable but you don't have to know anything to do it. You can get anybody off the street."

(Josephine, acting at the judge in the ad hoc court, does object to the first suggestion of having the deaf-mute as the defense for all of the evil in the world, however.)

In this way, the pair agree to have a trial in the damp and dark recesses of her basement, and the local refuse-collector/rag-picker will act as their defense. He knows them "to the bottom of their souls." After all, he goes through their trash every day. What does he find in their rubbish? Mostly flowers. 

If you haven't seen the film, I'd advise you to rush over to YouTube and search for it. It probably won't be there long since for obvious reasons. (Some executive will realize that he is losing money every time somebody shares something for free. 

If I had my way, this play would be performed every year in every town in America. What about you, do you have any favorite plays that you would like to see performed?

Here's a clip from the film: You can find other clips HERE.

______________________

If you enjoyed this post, be sure to link it at other comment sections in other sites where relevant. Sharing is a pleasure and it's really what the Net is all about.

To Retweet:

https://twitter.com/ANomadicView/status/214373383373197312

Digg

http://digg.com/news/politics/the_madwoman_of_chaillot_truth_never_goes_out_of_fashion_nomadic_politics