Permanant war and meaningless chatter

What's on the table for this election season? Glenn Greenwald explains:

But like almost all of the most consequential and destructive policies — endless war, the Drug War, the sprawling and barbaric American prison state — the domestic Surveillance State expands with equal fervor under both Democratic and Republicans administrations, and opposing it thus affords no partisan gain and it is therefore entirely off the table of debate. In lieu of any dispute over these types of actually consequential government policies, we instead endure a series of trivial weekly scandals that numb the brain, distract attention, and produce acrimony as virulent and divisive as it is petty.
Greenwald pointed out that some mainstream writers are starting to take note of America's endless state of war and surveillance. For instance, the following excerpt is the writing of Fareed Zakaria:
Since September 11, 2001, the U.S. government has created or reconfigured at least 263 organizations to tackle some aspect of the war on terror. Thirty-three new building complexes have been built for the intelligence bureaucracies alone, occupying 17 million square feet – the equivalent of 22 U.S. Capitols or three Pentagons. The largest bureaucracy after the Pentagon and the Department of Veterans Affairs is now the Department of Homeland Security, which has a workforce of 230,000 people. The rise of this national security state has entailed a vast expansion in the government's powers that now touch every aspect of American life, even when seemingly unrelated to terrorism. Some 30,000 people, for example, are now employed exclusively to listen in on phone conversations and other communications within the United States.

Continue ReadingPermanant war and meaningless chatter

Businesses souring on arbitration

The website Arbitration Nation has reported on the cognitive dissonance experienced by businesses when it comes to arbitration of commercial disputes. Based on a new survey, only 60% of companies arbitrated commercial disputes in 2011, compared to 85% in 1997. Why aren't businesses clamoring to arbitrate their disputes with other businesses?

The most common reasons given by survey respondents (general counsel and senior corporate lawyers) for not using arbitration included: the difficulty of appeal, the perception that arbitrators tend to compromise, the concern that arbitrators may not follow the law, a lack of confidence in neutrals, and high costs of arbitration. The study, conducted through Cornell’s Survey Research Institute, was co-sponsored by Pepperdine’s Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution, Cornell University, and the International Institute for Conflict Prevention & Resolution (CPR). (Its results are not currently available on-line.)
Arbitration Nation noted that while businesses are increasingly avoiding arbitration, the United States Supreme Court is making it more making it increasingly difficult to avoid the application of harsh arbitration contracts. Of course, most of the new court holdings enforcing pre-dispute mandatory arbitration clauses victimize non-businesses, such as consumers, employees and victims of civil rights abuses. Arbitration Nation links to a new article by Thomas Stipanowich that proposes a rating and ranking system for arbitration processes. We already have ample evidence exempt these group from mandatory arbitration. It is palpably clear that big businesses are using mandatory arbitration to take advantage of consumers, employees and victims of civil rights abuses, using their disparate bargaining power. They are using "arbitration" as a method of gaining immunity for their illegal actions. They are doing this, even as they vote with their feet that they don't like arbitration for themselves. Instead of gathering more data, we completely carve out consumers, employees and civil rights plaintiffs from being required to arbitrate. Sure, give them the option of arbitrating a case, but only after a dispute has arisen; never force them into mandatory, binding, pre-dispute arbitration. What I have just described is the approach of the Arbitration Fairness Act.

Continue ReadingBusinesses souring on arbitration

Gorilla Circle

I visited the St. Louis Zoo today with a camera. Upon arrival, I headed to the exhibits of the great apes. After watching the gorillas for awhile, three of these magnificent animals assumed this configuration: As you can see, A was checking out B, who was checkout out C, who was checking out A. It seemed to be the gorilla version of Sartre's No Exit for about 20 seconds. And then it was back to romping across the grounds or sitting in a shady spot.

Continue ReadingGorilla Circle

Free Will

At the recent St. Louis Earth Day festival at Forest Park, I noticed a woman walking by, who was wearing a t-shirt bearing the phrase "Free Will." Probably because I'm in the process of reading two books on the topic (one by Dan Dennett and the other a brand new book by Sam Harris), I stopped her to ask about her shirt. "Excuse me. I couldn't help but notice your t-shirt. Are you in interested in philosophical questions?" She looked down at her shirt, smiled, then said: "No, I'm with Shakespeare in the Park." It took me a few seconds, but I finally got it. The woman's name is Laura Copppinger, and she is the Marketing Assistant for the St. Louis version of Shakespeare in the Park. She was quite happy that I stopped her to ask about the shirt, because it bore the brand new marketing slogan to promote this year's production: Othello, which will run from May 25 - June 17. The mission of Shakespeare in the park:

The Festival annually attracts an audience of over 60,000 in the park and reaches over 25,000 in the schools. We have been awarded numerous Kevin Kline Awards, and in 2012 we received the Exemplary Community Achievement Award from Missouri Humanities Council. The Festival is nearly entirely supported by contributions. We believe theatre is a powerful force for social change and should be accessible to all.

Continue ReadingFree Will

Internet companies pressured to make private communications easy access for the governent

It's bad enough that the federal government can convince itself that it has the right to listen in on all of our telephone calls, emails, Tweets, and posts without probable cause. Now the federal government is twisting the arms of the internet providers to make it technologically easy for them to spy on us. Glenn Greenwald reports on this travesty.

Continue ReadingInternet companies pressured to make private communications easy access for the governent