I'm long been a big fan of Monty Python, so I was delighted when my niece pointed out this sketch, which I had never before seen. After you get through the preliminaries, you'll see that it features two bored airline pilots. Sadly, in some ways, this skit reminds me of U.S. Homeland Security.
Matt Taibbi gives us a bit of hope that some justice will be done:
[T]he lead auditor reviewing one of the world’s largest investment banks [Lehman] had no idea what a series of regularly-occurring billion-dollar transactions committed by her main client were, and apparently wasn’t interested. It also didn’t seem to bother E&Y that Lehman was not disclosing any of this to its investors in its SEC filings. My guess is that this suit is the beginning of the end for Ernst and Young and, who knows, may be the beginning of a series of investigations that ultimately take down the auditors and ratings agencies that made the financial crisis possible. Without accountants and raters signing off on all the bogus derivative math and bad bookkeeping, a lot of this mess would never have happened.
John Nichols and Robert W. McChesney have put together about the best description that I've ever seen of the what ails us. Look, if we can't elect unbiased representatives and if our media can't fairly report the events of the day, what chance do we have of peacefully reforming the corrupt system we have? It turns out that these two problems are intimately connected. Here are a couple excerpts about ourMoney & Media Election Complex, which appeared in the November 29, 2010 edition ofThe Nation:
[I]t's not just corporations and consultants who are setting the new agenda. The most important yet least-recognized piece of the money-and-media election complex is the commercial broadcasting industry, which just had its best money-making election season ever. Political advertising has become an enormous cash cow for it—roughly two-thirds of the campaign spending this year flowed into the coffers of TV stations; the final figure is likely to be well above $2 billion. Whereas in the 1990s the average commercial TV station received about 3 percent of its revenues from campaign ads, this year campaign money could account for as much as 20 percent. And station owners are not missing a beat; thirty-second spots that went for $2,000 in 2008 were jacked up to $5,000 this year, according to the Los Angeles Times. Much of this money will go to stations owned by a handful of Fortune 500 firms. No wonder station owners oppose campaign finance reform; their lobby role in Washington is similar to the NRA's in battling bans on assault weapons. Yet commercial broadcasters receive monopoly licenses for their scarce channels at no charge from the government under the condition that they serve the public interest. By any account, the most important role of our media is to make the electoral system serve the voters, who, as surveys continue to demonstrate, rely on local TV as their main source for news. However, local TV covers far less than it did two or three decades ago; according to the Norman Lear Center at the University of Southern California, a thirty-minute newscast at election time has more political advertising than campaign news. Even when politics does get covered, the focus, increasingly, is on "analyzing" ads. And the cumulative effect of endless advertising overwhelms what little remains of independent on-air coverage. What incentive do commercial stations have to cover politics when they can force candidates and players to pay for it? Nice work if you can get it.Are we lacking in options? Hardly:
Gathering the data and grilling the guilty players will make the case for fundamental reform, which must come at multiple levels. The FCC could require stations to grant equal advertising time to any candidate who is attacked in an ad paid for by corporations, with the free response ad to immediately follow the hit job. The FCC should consider requiring free TV ads for every candidate on the ballot if any candidate buys his or her own spots. This would allow wealthy candidates access but would prevent them from shouting everyone else down. Let the stations jack up rates to cover all the time, if they want. We suspect the appeal of TV ads will decline if the result is simply to open an equal debate rather than allow one side to dominate. And of course there is the long-overdue matter of providing free airtime to candidates and requiring debates to be broadcast. Radical ideas? Hardly. Much of what we're talking about was outlined in the original version of the McCain-Feingold bill of the 1990s and in other proposals advanced over the years. It's time to renew them.
Driving home from work today I did a bit of social psychology inside of my car by scanning the offerings of AM radio (I've been doing that a lot lately). Today, the most prominent AM radio station in St. Louis featured an opportunity to talk to Santa Claus. Santa took precious moments out from his busy schedule to talk to dozens of St. Louis children who were allowed to call the station and discuss upcoming matters of great importance with Mr. Claus. The typical conversation went something like this:
Santa: what your name? [I kept thinking, "Here's a man who claims to be virtually omniscient in that he knows who's been bad or good, but he doesn't know who he's talking to."]
Ashley: Ashley
Santa: How old are you, Ashley?
Ashley: I am six.
Santa: What would you like for Christmas, Ashley?
Ashley: I would like an iPod, and a Nintendo Wii and lots of other toys [Most of the children asked for toys that added up to many hundreds of dollars].
Santa: Ho, Ho, Ho! Thanks for talking! [Santa knew enough avoid saying anything that would cause big disappointments on Christmas morning]
--
As you might guess, there was a conspiracy of misinformation going on. The parents and the radio station personalities worked hard to tell the children that Santa Claus actually existed, and they convinced the kids that asking a stranger to bring them valuable things was somehow appropriate. And why wouldn't he be? He gives you stuff, no strings attached.
Even though it is obvious, it needs to be said that Santa Claus is far more popular than Jesus Christ, at least among children.
[More . . . ]
On December 21, 2010, Frank LaRue (the UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression) and Catalina Botero (the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression) have issued a Joint Statement on Wikileaks. This statement is carefully crafted and right on the mark. It will piss off American conservatives who still care one whit about freedom of speech issues because it is written in the spirit of the First Amendment. It was written "in light of ongoing developments related to the release of diplomatic cables by the organization Wikileaks. The Statement recognizes the critical importance of the free flow of information for the preservation of democratic societies. It advocates that a stiff burden of proof should be on those who attempt to stifle any form of speech with claims of national security. It recognizes the important work done by journalists and whistle-blowers. It condemns the following:
- Politically motivated legal cases brought against journalists and independent media,
- The blocking of websites and web domains on political grounds and
- Calls by public officials for illegitimate retributive action.
The only fault I find with the statement is that the issuing organizations have protected it with traditional copyright. that is so 20th Century. Something of this importance and magnitude should have been been issued accordance with Creative Commons or with "no rights reserved" to reach the broadest possible audience. Here are the first two articles of the Statement:1. The right to access information held by public authorities is a fundamental human right subject to a strict regime of exceptions. The right to access to information protects the right of every person to access public information and to know what governments are doing on their behalf. It is a right that has received particular attention from the international community, given its importance to the consolidation, functioning and preservation of democratic regimes. Without the protection of this right, it is impossible for citizens to know the truth, demand accountability and fully exercise their right to political participation. National authorities should take active steps to ensure the principle of maximum transparency, address the culture of secrecy that still prevails in many countries and increase the amount of information subject to routine disclosure.
2. At the same time, the right of access to information should be subject to a narrowly tailored system of exceptions to protect overriding public and private interests such as national security and the rights and security of other persons. Secrecy laws should define national security precisely and indicate clearly the criteria which should be used in determining whether or not information can be declared secret. Exceptions to access to information on national security or other grounds should apply only where there is a risk of substantial harm to the protected interest and where that harm is greater than the overall public interest in having access to the information. In accordance with international standards, information regarding human rights violations should not be considered secret or classified.