Monday, February 11, 2008
This Is What I Live By.............
"Our worst fear is not that we are inadequate, our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, 'Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented and fabulous?' Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God; your playing small doesn't serve the world. There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you. We were born to make manifest the glory of God within us. It is not just in some of us, it is in everyone, and as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others."
Sunday, February 10, 2008
What I Think Of Our Government?
I think the American system government is an excellent system of government that provides opportunities for its citizens to exercise its freedoms and choose between multitudes of opportunities to have a quality life within society. It is a continual work in progress that requires active participation from all of its citizens, not just a privileged few and must be tweaked to protect the rights of all of its citizens, not just a chosen few that either are educated or affluent.
The reason being is that if you look at the framework three areas of our government--the Congress, the Presidency and the Federal Judicial System, you find that within our system of capitalism, the educated and the affluent are poised to take advantage of these opportunities while the poor, uneducated, and disenfranchised get left behind and aren’t aware of what is going on within our government. Power and money are variables that corrupt our political system and disrupt the system of checks and balances that prevent one area of government from having too much power. One example of power corrupting our government is the lack of congressional term limits on our congressmen. Congressmen make careers out of their office, taking advantage of the numerous financial and other perks without remembering the original intent of our Founding Fathers which was to represent the constituents that elected them. The institution of congressional term limits that allow a congressman to be an effective voice for his constituents while reducing the corruption would be an effective first step towards achieving this measure. The Presidency has these limits, but the process to elect this individual has denigrated to the point where it can be manipulated and bought by special interests that have a certain agenda to push which isn’t necessarily conducive to the larger population as a whole. It will be interesting to watch a campaign like Barack Obama’s continue to gain momentum based on the interest of the people themselves who have invested significantly in his campaign based on his message, character, and leadership abilities. The judicial system has been a fair one overall with the exceptions being characterized as guilty until proven innocent as opposed to innocent until proven guilty. The system has proven itself to be racially and politically biased (esp. on a federal level), especially in terms of acquiring quality legal representation and jury selection which is supposed to represent a jury of one’s peers, but hasn’t always proved itself to be the case. And in the case of those are jailed unjustly, there isn’t a system of reparations that compensates for the time that they lost in incarceration.
But change doesn’t happen overnight and a lot of progress has been made in the 231 years since the Declaration of Independence was born in 1776. However to preserve the sanctity of our Union, we must continue to evolve and realize that our Union isn’t perfect and that it takes the participation to make it as close as possible.
The reason being is that if you look at the framework three areas of our government--the Congress, the Presidency and the Federal Judicial System, you find that within our system of capitalism, the educated and the affluent are poised to take advantage of these opportunities while the poor, uneducated, and disenfranchised get left behind and aren’t aware of what is going on within our government. Power and money are variables that corrupt our political system and disrupt the system of checks and balances that prevent one area of government from having too much power. One example of power corrupting our government is the lack of congressional term limits on our congressmen. Congressmen make careers out of their office, taking advantage of the numerous financial and other perks without remembering the original intent of our Founding Fathers which was to represent the constituents that elected them. The institution of congressional term limits that allow a congressman to be an effective voice for his constituents while reducing the corruption would be an effective first step towards achieving this measure. The Presidency has these limits, but the process to elect this individual has denigrated to the point where it can be manipulated and bought by special interests that have a certain agenda to push which isn’t necessarily conducive to the larger population as a whole. It will be interesting to watch a campaign like Barack Obama’s continue to gain momentum based on the interest of the people themselves who have invested significantly in his campaign based on his message, character, and leadership abilities. The judicial system has been a fair one overall with the exceptions being characterized as guilty until proven innocent as opposed to innocent until proven guilty. The system has proven itself to be racially and politically biased (esp. on a federal level), especially in terms of acquiring quality legal representation and jury selection which is supposed to represent a jury of one’s peers, but hasn’t always proved itself to be the case. And in the case of those are jailed unjustly, there isn’t a system of reparations that compensates for the time that they lost in incarceration.
But change doesn’t happen overnight and a lot of progress has been made in the 231 years since the Declaration of Independence was born in 1776. However to preserve the sanctity of our Union, we must continue to evolve and realize that our Union isn’t perfect and that it takes the participation to make it as close as possible.
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Who Is Malcolm Kareen Freeney (Part II)
So we can pick up with the Malcolm Freeney story so to speak with the end of Chicago and the beginning of Madison, Wisconsin. So I stayed with my Aunt Julia for a year and then my mom and dad adopted me. Madison is where I first got exposed to racism because none of the kids in elementary school liked me at all. They called me names like Milky Way and a few other racial epithets. I used to pick fights as a kid and have my sister come beat up the kids because she could fight. Now my sister isn’t my biological sister, but she is my sister all of the same. People say racism is about people being scared of something that they either are afraid of or don’t understand. And the resulting action becomes about controlling that ‘something.’
Well control would be a central theme throughout my entire life to date. Especially when kids found out how smart I was through class activities such as completing your times tables in math class when I would go faster than anyone else. When I was adopted, even my mother didn’t know what to do with me. I was an emotionally wild, scarred child with multiple traumas that got to the point where if I could get used to the pain, then I can numb myself from it. So the more my mother spanked me for something, the more I got used to it. And to this day, I don’t cry over much. I don’t cry at funerals, rarely cry in pain unless the pain is extreme, and really just keep an even keel about most things. So my mother tried to put me into therapy, but when you don’t want someone to reach you, then you try to outsmart them. This is exactly what I did when I went to these sessions that I actually don’t even remember. If anyone has ever seen the movie “Good Will Hunting” with Matt Damon and Robin Williams, then you would understand when I say that you keep trying out therapists until you find one that can actually reach the subject in question. In that sense I was abandoned by my parents which hurts to this day because they can’t make themselves vulnerable enough to admit it.
However, on the flip side they saved my life because without them, I would be either dead or in jail. They are my mom and dad and I do love them dearly. Sometimes I just can’t be around them for extended periods of time. I just wish that we could admit that in our relationship mistakes were made, and then let’s just move on from there. But vulnerable is something that they don’t function well within our parent-child relationship. It would require ceding control which seems to be a problem for them. It’s one thing to set and establish boundaries; it’s another to impose those to the point where the relationship becomes dysfunctional being about control instead of raising a child to be a functional adult. But I’ve gotten off on a tangent, which I can tend to do from time to time as I am a long winded person both in speech and in writing; an important tangent which will be revisited later in these journal entries. But we need to complete the saga of Madison, Wisconsin, explain how I moved to the DC area in the 5th grade, and extol the virtues of Mom and Dad, and how we got to this point today. We will get to all of that I promise as we journey through the adventure of writing these journal entries. Oh well. The saga continues...
Well control would be a central theme throughout my entire life to date. Especially when kids found out how smart I was through class activities such as completing your times tables in math class when I would go faster than anyone else. When I was adopted, even my mother didn’t know what to do with me. I was an emotionally wild, scarred child with multiple traumas that got to the point where if I could get used to the pain, then I can numb myself from it. So the more my mother spanked me for something, the more I got used to it. And to this day, I don’t cry over much. I don’t cry at funerals, rarely cry in pain unless the pain is extreme, and really just keep an even keel about most things. So my mother tried to put me into therapy, but when you don’t want someone to reach you, then you try to outsmart them. This is exactly what I did when I went to these sessions that I actually don’t even remember. If anyone has ever seen the movie “Good Will Hunting” with Matt Damon and Robin Williams, then you would understand when I say that you keep trying out therapists until you find one that can actually reach the subject in question. In that sense I was abandoned by my parents which hurts to this day because they can’t make themselves vulnerable enough to admit it.
However, on the flip side they saved my life because without them, I would be either dead or in jail. They are my mom and dad and I do love them dearly. Sometimes I just can’t be around them for extended periods of time. I just wish that we could admit that in our relationship mistakes were made, and then let’s just move on from there. But vulnerable is something that they don’t function well within our parent-child relationship. It would require ceding control which seems to be a problem for them. It’s one thing to set and establish boundaries; it’s another to impose those to the point where the relationship becomes dysfunctional being about control instead of raising a child to be a functional adult. But I’ve gotten off on a tangent, which I can tend to do from time to time as I am a long winded person both in speech and in writing; an important tangent which will be revisited later in these journal entries. But we need to complete the saga of Madison, Wisconsin, explain how I moved to the DC area in the 5th grade, and extol the virtues of Mom and Dad, and how we got to this point today. We will get to all of that I promise as we journey through the adventure of writing these journal entries. Oh well. The saga continues...
Friday, February 8, 2008
How to Save the Music Industry?
The music industry is the midst of an evolution. Technology has initiated a paradigm shift where sales are not the barometer in which an artist’s impact on the marketplace can be judged. There is a perception amongst the population that the music business is falling apart. When in actuality, the music business is not falling apart, but the sale of compact discs in retail outlets is on verge of extinction. The world is still consuming a voluminous amount of music on a daily basis; in fact more since a significant amount of it is available for free. Music continues to be the soundtrack to the lives of the human race whether its hip-hop, gospel, r&b, rock, jazz, dance, or alternative. So the question becomes how does the music business complete its evolution?
Good Question!
The answer lies in synergy: Combine the current social workflow of the Internet with the current business model of television (and Google).
What is measurable is the number of visits that an artist obtains on their website, MySpace, YouTube, or any other social networking website. A properly developed marketing strategy executed with precision can maximize these visits to create sponsorship and advertising opportunities for strategic partnerships. These strategic partnerships start on the local level with radio, the local clothing and shoe stores, or other specialty stores, and work their way up through the regional and national levels. This process ensures consistent revenue streams that can stabilize the operations of both the artist and the record company. But this process has a critical dependency…Content development and ownership!
What must be understood is that in order to build effective music careers, one must foster the relationship between the artist and their respective fanbase. Hit records are good for MP3 and ringtone sales and those things are important, especially the content that is delivered to the cellular phone. But long-term revenues come from the development of a catalog that can sell for generations. This only comes through artist development and the nurturing of an artist and their relationship with their fanbase. The connection has to be made or else very little holds.
Now a preface is rarely included as part of a business plan, but we felt that it was important to detail the challenges that the music business currently faces and how Gameofficial.com is positioned to answer those challenges. Simply put, “What separates Gameofficial.com from every other record label, production company, and entertainment company in the world?”
Gameofficial.com understands how to develop technology and hit records!
Why is that important? This is important because most entertainment companies only have an understanding of music and have little idea about the technology that drives the music. Conversely, most technology companies can develop, leverage, and implement technology, but do not understand what it takes to develop an artist, make a hit record, and introduce the product to the marketplace! So this positions Gameofficial.com uniquely in the marketplace to fulfill a need to introduce quality music that leverages the music for the benefit of all involved. Technology is continuously evolving, so this window is limited, so the time to act is now. So with that being said…
Welcome to Gameofficial.com and
Welcome To The Future!
Good Question!
The answer lies in synergy: Combine the current social workflow of the Internet with the current business model of television (and Google).
What is measurable is the number of visits that an artist obtains on their website, MySpace, YouTube, or any other social networking website. A properly developed marketing strategy executed with precision can maximize these visits to create sponsorship and advertising opportunities for strategic partnerships. These strategic partnerships start on the local level with radio, the local clothing and shoe stores, or other specialty stores, and work their way up through the regional and national levels. This process ensures consistent revenue streams that can stabilize the operations of both the artist and the record company. But this process has a critical dependency…Content development and ownership!
What must be understood is that in order to build effective music careers, one must foster the relationship between the artist and their respective fanbase. Hit records are good for MP3 and ringtone sales and those things are important, especially the content that is delivered to the cellular phone. But long-term revenues come from the development of a catalog that can sell for generations. This only comes through artist development and the nurturing of an artist and their relationship with their fanbase. The connection has to be made or else very little holds.
Now a preface is rarely included as part of a business plan, but we felt that it was important to detail the challenges that the music business currently faces and how Gameofficial.com is positioned to answer those challenges. Simply put, “What separates Gameofficial.com from every other record label, production company, and entertainment company in the world?”
Gameofficial.com understands how to develop technology and hit records!
Why is that important? This is important because most entertainment companies only have an understanding of music and have little idea about the technology that drives the music. Conversely, most technology companies can develop, leverage, and implement technology, but do not understand what it takes to develop an artist, make a hit record, and introduce the product to the marketplace! So this positions Gameofficial.com uniquely in the marketplace to fulfill a need to introduce quality music that leverages the music for the benefit of all involved. Technology is continuously evolving, so this window is limited, so the time to act is now. So with that being said…
Welcome to Gameofficial.com and
Welcome To The Future!
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Who is Malcolm Kareen Freeney?
Who is Malcolm Kareen Freeney and what does he stand for?
Well we should start with the obvious stuff such as I am a Black male, age 33 born July 9, 1974 in Chicago, Illinois. I am a fabulous, intelligent, giving, sometimes stubborn, intense, literal, loyal, witty (sometimes sarcastic), passionate Black man. My bad traits are some selfishness, classic avoidance, and at times I have a bad temper but we will talk about those in greater detail later. My biological mother died when I was 4 years old and I have never known my biological father. My biological mother’s name was Eva Mae Freeney. After a brief stint with my Aunt Julia, I was adopted by my aunt and uncle and moved to Madison, Wisconsin. The relationship is that my biological mom and my uncle who adopted me are brother and sister. I hope that isn’t too confusing. How do I describe my first 5 years of my life? In retrospect when I think about it, painful to a degree. My biological mother isolated me from the world, so I didn’t develop the way normal kids would. If my mind wasn’t already at an advanced level, I think I would have been truly lost in the world of life. This is because I wasn’t afforded the opportunity to interact with kids my age, go to preschool or any of those accelerated pre-kindergarten programs. Athletically, I didn’t develop at all. At age 5, I couldn’t run at all and organized sports, forget about it! I spent so much time by myself and within my own mind that even today, I feel most comfortable by myself or with people that I truly feel comfortable around. The only time I came out was when I went to the Jewel supermarket where I would watch the heroin users shoot up. I got into so much mischief as a child that when my biological mother died, I was in the hospital as well for taking pills that I shouldn’t have taken such as Ex-Lax. To this day, I don’t do drugs or drink and for the most part, live relatively cautious. I knew that my biological mom loved me, but sometimes people just have a strange way of showing it. My stint with Aunt Julia was interesting in that people say that I was abused. She had three kids who are my cousins: Billie, Jeff, and Dwayne (we call him Butch) I don’t necessarily remember that even though there was one incident that stands out where my cousin Billie pushed me down a flight of stairs leaving a mark that would remain on my chest for years. But it wasn’t completely unprovoked because my intelligence and sarcasm and piss a person off to the nth degree. One time my aunt was late picking me from elementary school so I started to walk home by myself. They found me eventually, but I think I worried a few people in the process because at 5 years old, I’m not supposed to know the way home by myself. So I think that some of the abuse was warranted though it may have been excessive. My cousin Jeff is still like a brother to me even though our relationship right now is a bit estranged for some reason.
Well we should start with the obvious stuff such as I am a Black male, age 33 born July 9, 1974 in Chicago, Illinois. I am a fabulous, intelligent, giving, sometimes stubborn, intense, literal, loyal, witty (sometimes sarcastic), passionate Black man. My bad traits are some selfishness, classic avoidance, and at times I have a bad temper but we will talk about those in greater detail later. My biological mother died when I was 4 years old and I have never known my biological father. My biological mother’s name was Eva Mae Freeney. After a brief stint with my Aunt Julia, I was adopted by my aunt and uncle and moved to Madison, Wisconsin. The relationship is that my biological mom and my uncle who adopted me are brother and sister. I hope that isn’t too confusing. How do I describe my first 5 years of my life? In retrospect when I think about it, painful to a degree. My biological mother isolated me from the world, so I didn’t develop the way normal kids would. If my mind wasn’t already at an advanced level, I think I would have been truly lost in the world of life. This is because I wasn’t afforded the opportunity to interact with kids my age, go to preschool or any of those accelerated pre-kindergarten programs. Athletically, I didn’t develop at all. At age 5, I couldn’t run at all and organized sports, forget about it! I spent so much time by myself and within my own mind that even today, I feel most comfortable by myself or with people that I truly feel comfortable around. The only time I came out was when I went to the Jewel supermarket where I would watch the heroin users shoot up. I got into so much mischief as a child that when my biological mother died, I was in the hospital as well for taking pills that I shouldn’t have taken such as Ex-Lax. To this day, I don’t do drugs or drink and for the most part, live relatively cautious. I knew that my biological mom loved me, but sometimes people just have a strange way of showing it. My stint with Aunt Julia was interesting in that people say that I was abused. She had three kids who are my cousins: Billie, Jeff, and Dwayne (we call him Butch) I don’t necessarily remember that even though there was one incident that stands out where my cousin Billie pushed me down a flight of stairs leaving a mark that would remain on my chest for years. But it wasn’t completely unprovoked because my intelligence and sarcasm and piss a person off to the nth degree. One time my aunt was late picking me from elementary school so I started to walk home by myself. They found me eventually, but I think I worried a few people in the process because at 5 years old, I’m not supposed to know the way home by myself. So I think that some of the abuse was warranted though it may have been excessive. My cousin Jeff is still like a brother to me even though our relationship right now is a bit estranged for some reason.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Stealing – Is it ever appropriate?
Stealing – Is it ever appropriate? This is the question that we are going to attempt to answer in this discussion. The question is a complex one as several arguments on both sides of the question could be explored from an ethical point of view. There is the natural answer that stealing is never appropriate which is backed up by the Divine Command, Natural Law, Utilitarian, and Social Contract ethical theories. But what happens when a person is faced with extreme circumstances, such as natural disaster, poverty, or hopelessness? Does that make it okay for a person to steal in order to survive? Is it okay for a person to steal as a form of protest?
The Ethical Egoism supports these answers in the affirmative as the theory states that everyone is self-preserving by nature. Therefore, it provides a justification for a person to steal in order to feed their family in times of crisis. We will examine these arguments by first breaking down the issue into the individual components. These individual components will identify the possible agents, acts, patients, and any interesting situations. Then we will utilize these components to establish two ethical theoretical viewpoints for each side and examine the underlying complexities that exist on each side of the argument.
The complexities introduce themselves in the form of racial stereotypes. Minorities have always struggled with equality in the areas of civil and economic rights. They have been typically stereotyped as animals, and therefore not worthy of exception or the proper respect afforded to other races. This was exemplified during the New Orleans disaster, when Kanye West commented on the government response to Hurricane Katrina during the NBC telethon where he stated the following:
“I hate the way they portray us in the media. You see a black family, it says, "They're looting." You see a white family, it says, "They're looking for food." And, you know, it's been five days [waiting for federal help] because most of the people are black. And even for me to complain about it, I would be a hypocrite because I've tried to turn away from the TV because it's too hard to watch. I've even been shopping before even giving a donation, so now I'm calling my business manager right now to see what is the biggest amount I can give, and just to imagine if I was down there, and those are my people down there. So anybody out there that wants to do anything that we can help -- with the way America is set up to help the poor, the black people, the less well-off, as slow as possible. I mean, the Red Cross is doing everything they can. We already realize a lot of people that could help are at war right now, fighting another way -- and they've given them permission to go down and shoot us!... George Bush doesn't care about black people!”
This quote is unprecedented for a number of reasons: 1.) Kanye is commenting on the how the actions of the victims are being perceived based on race, 2.) He is a Black entertainer making a direct criticism of the President of United States, implying that the President has racial bias, which is unheard of, and 3.) He is in a position to assist the victims and he understands that he is not doing enough to solve the problem making him part of the problem as opposed to being part of the solution. Personally, I agree with the statements that Kanye West made during that telecast. My view is that stealing is appropriate when faced with life and death situations such as natural disasters and extreme poverty. Survival becomes the only priority in this case, and that is paramount to not only survive, but bring attention to the situation so that assistance could be provided.
The following table decomposes the issue of stealing into the individual components. These individual components identify the possible agents, acts, patients, and any interesting situations.
(Table not listed)
This is important because the decomposition allows us to perform a comprehensive analysis of the question of stealing by carefully examining each component on both sides of the argument and constructing the appropriate justifications that will support the arguments.
As I stated earlier, my personal view is that stealing is appropriate when faced with life and death situations such as natural disasters and extreme poverty. Survival becomes the only priority in this case, and that is paramount to not only survive, but bring attention to the situation so that assistance could be provided. Ethical egoism is the ethical theoretical viewpoint that can be used to support this argument. This theory explicitly states that, "In other words, it is good for humans to act in their own self-interest in each and every occasion." Under situations of extreme duress, such as Natural disasters (New Orleans disaster), Traumatic situations (Rodney King verdict), or Poverty mentioned in the table, the agents, whether it is a single person or a particular group of individuals, have to commit acts of stealing against the patients in order to survive. Traumatic situations such as the Rodney King verdict and the death of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. are a catalyst for such acts because the affected groups of people are traumatized and require a release. Thus, the traumatic situation becomes an impetus for a riot against those who are perceived to inflict the trauma. These riots start with stealing simply for survival, but quickly degenerate into situations of looting and the complete destruction of property. In a weird twist the Prima Facie theory, specifically the Principle of Reparation could be used to support the acts that arise from traumatic situations. The reason being is that prior to the traumatic situation, there are usually symptoms that create unrest in these communities. Whether its lack of quality schools, affordable housing, stable employment, or basic social violations, these communities feel neglected and that their voice is not being heard by their leaders on all levels (local, state, federal, and international). At this point, the traumatic situation represents the point where the community is fed up and the community is seeking both retribution and reparation for the harm that has been caused. The government has continually inflicted harm on these communities through waste, exploitation, mismanagement, and an abject failure to listen to the citizens. So the community inflicts reparations on those who they feel are exploiting them for profit without giving back to the community.
But does that justify stealing as appropriate? These acts are still crimes, with or without proper justification. The Eighth Commandment in the Bible states, "Thou shall not steal...” which establishes the Divine Command theory as the foundational theory to support the argument that stealing is not appropriate. Furthermore, the Natural Law theory states that "there are very general moral principles/laws that are objective truths discoverable in the nature of things." Stealing is understood as a general moral principle that has consequences for the action. If it is a generally understood law that stealing is illegal, and there is a contract within society that states that citizens will obey the generally understood laws of society, then to break that contract is to understand that significant penalties come with these illegal acts. That premise is the basis for the Social Contract theory which states, "...we agree to give up some authority and power to a ruler (or rulers) in exchange for the benefits of living in a peaceful, law-abiding society. We contract (agree) to form a society. Just by living in this society we silently agree to its laws and ethos." So stealing becomes a violation of God's Law, Natural Law, and the Laws of society that govern our people.
There is an emotion that Kanye West conveys in his quote at the onset of this discussion that applies to both arguments. That is one of remorse or use of his moral conscience in analyzing his actions against the backdrop of the New Orleans disaster. Whether the justification of stealing is right or wrong, there is crime committed against your soul that will always have to be atoned for. It may not be right away, but at some point those actions come back to affect one's conscience. Aristotle's theory states that, "The goal of morality is to develop a soul whose rational and non-rational parts act as one." This synthesis occurs at different stages of a human's life and development. But when it occurs, regret sets in, upon reflection upon the act that has been committed. This is important in the development of the next aspect of Aristotle's theory which outlines that, "Virtue ethics emphasizes that it is not actions that are right or wrong, moral or immoral. It is the human being that is moral or immoral. Becoming a good person involves developing a certain moral wisdom throughout a lifetime." This allows for healing, whether it is in a correctional facility, through God, or the reparation for wrongdoing. The act of stealing for one's survival would still be appropriate, because it is an extenuating circumstance, but there still is a price to be paid, which society cannot define.
So in conclusion, we have successfully examined both sides of the question, "Stealing – Is it ever appropriate?” We have established an argument through careful examination that stealing is appropriate under situations of extreme duress. It does not excuse the moral price that has to be paid for the pain that is inflicted on others because it is still a violation of law. But under situations of extreme duress, survival is the primary instinct, with the consequences being a secondary factor in the equation. So under that specific condition, stealing is an appropriate act, regardless of the consequence.
The Ethical Egoism supports these answers in the affirmative as the theory states that everyone is self-preserving by nature. Therefore, it provides a justification for a person to steal in order to feed their family in times of crisis. We will examine these arguments by first breaking down the issue into the individual components. These individual components will identify the possible agents, acts, patients, and any interesting situations. Then we will utilize these components to establish two ethical theoretical viewpoints for each side and examine the underlying complexities that exist on each side of the argument.
The complexities introduce themselves in the form of racial stereotypes. Minorities have always struggled with equality in the areas of civil and economic rights. They have been typically stereotyped as animals, and therefore not worthy of exception or the proper respect afforded to other races. This was exemplified during the New Orleans disaster, when Kanye West commented on the government response to Hurricane Katrina during the NBC telethon where he stated the following:
“I hate the way they portray us in the media. You see a black family, it says, "They're looting." You see a white family, it says, "They're looking for food." And, you know, it's been five days [waiting for federal help] because most of the people are black. And even for me to complain about it, I would be a hypocrite because I've tried to turn away from the TV because it's too hard to watch. I've even been shopping before even giving a donation, so now I'm calling my business manager right now to see what is the biggest amount I can give, and just to imagine if I was down there, and those are my people down there. So anybody out there that wants to do anything that we can help -- with the way America is set up to help the poor, the black people, the less well-off, as slow as possible. I mean, the Red Cross is doing everything they can. We already realize a lot of people that could help are at war right now, fighting another way -- and they've given them permission to go down and shoot us!... George Bush doesn't care about black people!”
This quote is unprecedented for a number of reasons: 1.) Kanye is commenting on the how the actions of the victims are being perceived based on race, 2.) He is a Black entertainer making a direct criticism of the President of United States, implying that the President has racial bias, which is unheard of, and 3.) He is in a position to assist the victims and he understands that he is not doing enough to solve the problem making him part of the problem as opposed to being part of the solution. Personally, I agree with the statements that Kanye West made during that telecast. My view is that stealing is appropriate when faced with life and death situations such as natural disasters and extreme poverty. Survival becomes the only priority in this case, and that is paramount to not only survive, but bring attention to the situation so that assistance could be provided.
The following table decomposes the issue of stealing into the individual components. These individual components identify the possible agents, acts, patients, and any interesting situations.
(Table not listed)
This is important because the decomposition allows us to perform a comprehensive analysis of the question of stealing by carefully examining each component on both sides of the argument and constructing the appropriate justifications that will support the arguments.
As I stated earlier, my personal view is that stealing is appropriate when faced with life and death situations such as natural disasters and extreme poverty. Survival becomes the only priority in this case, and that is paramount to not only survive, but bring attention to the situation so that assistance could be provided. Ethical egoism is the ethical theoretical viewpoint that can be used to support this argument. This theory explicitly states that, "In other words, it is good for humans to act in their own self-interest in each and every occasion." Under situations of extreme duress, such as Natural disasters (New Orleans disaster), Traumatic situations (Rodney King verdict), or Poverty mentioned in the table, the agents, whether it is a single person or a particular group of individuals, have to commit acts of stealing against the patients in order to survive. Traumatic situations such as the Rodney King verdict and the death of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. are a catalyst for such acts because the affected groups of people are traumatized and require a release. Thus, the traumatic situation becomes an impetus for a riot against those who are perceived to inflict the trauma. These riots start with stealing simply for survival, but quickly degenerate into situations of looting and the complete destruction of property. In a weird twist the Prima Facie theory, specifically the Principle of Reparation could be used to support the acts that arise from traumatic situations. The reason being is that prior to the traumatic situation, there are usually symptoms that create unrest in these communities. Whether its lack of quality schools, affordable housing, stable employment, or basic social violations, these communities feel neglected and that their voice is not being heard by their leaders on all levels (local, state, federal, and international). At this point, the traumatic situation represents the point where the community is fed up and the community is seeking both retribution and reparation for the harm that has been caused. The government has continually inflicted harm on these communities through waste, exploitation, mismanagement, and an abject failure to listen to the citizens. So the community inflicts reparations on those who they feel are exploiting them for profit without giving back to the community.
But does that justify stealing as appropriate? These acts are still crimes, with or without proper justification. The Eighth Commandment in the Bible states, "Thou shall not steal...” which establishes the Divine Command theory as the foundational theory to support the argument that stealing is not appropriate. Furthermore, the Natural Law theory states that "there are very general moral principles/laws that are objective truths discoverable in the nature of things." Stealing is understood as a general moral principle that has consequences for the action. If it is a generally understood law that stealing is illegal, and there is a contract within society that states that citizens will obey the generally understood laws of society, then to break that contract is to understand that significant penalties come with these illegal acts. That premise is the basis for the Social Contract theory which states, "...we agree to give up some authority and power to a ruler (or rulers) in exchange for the benefits of living in a peaceful, law-abiding society. We contract (agree) to form a society. Just by living in this society we silently agree to its laws and ethos." So stealing becomes a violation of God's Law, Natural Law, and the Laws of society that govern our people.
There is an emotion that Kanye West conveys in his quote at the onset of this discussion that applies to both arguments. That is one of remorse or use of his moral conscience in analyzing his actions against the backdrop of the New Orleans disaster. Whether the justification of stealing is right or wrong, there is crime committed against your soul that will always have to be atoned for. It may not be right away, but at some point those actions come back to affect one's conscience. Aristotle's theory states that, "The goal of morality is to develop a soul whose rational and non-rational parts act as one." This synthesis occurs at different stages of a human's life and development. But when it occurs, regret sets in, upon reflection upon the act that has been committed. This is important in the development of the next aspect of Aristotle's theory which outlines that, "Virtue ethics emphasizes that it is not actions that are right or wrong, moral or immoral. It is the human being that is moral or immoral. Becoming a good person involves developing a certain moral wisdom throughout a lifetime." This allows for healing, whether it is in a correctional facility, through God, or the reparation for wrongdoing. The act of stealing for one's survival would still be appropriate, because it is an extenuating circumstance, but there still is a price to be paid, which society cannot define.
So in conclusion, we have successfully examined both sides of the question, "Stealing – Is it ever appropriate?” We have established an argument through careful examination that stealing is appropriate under situations of extreme duress. It does not excuse the moral price that has to be paid for the pain that is inflicted on others because it is still a violation of law. But under situations of extreme duress, survival is the primary instinct, with the consequences being a secondary factor in the equation. So under that specific condition, stealing is an appropriate act, regardless of the consequence.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Competition Policy In The European Union
You know what....y'all want to know my thoughts..........well here they are.....one of the nerdier ones....
---------------------------------------------------------------
The evolution of Competition Policy in the European Union (EU) is a direct result of a basic requirement to create a European single market. This basic requirement came as a result of the impact of 19th century Industrialization. The impact resulted in the need for greater productivity in less time, with increased efficiency to sustain economic growth. The marriage of invention with new technology created a new standard of living in a society that would come to expect for this standard of living to be maintained at all costs. European businesses, whether privately-owned or state-owned, were experiencing unprecedented growth with diversified revenue streams. As competition increased, European businesses were willing to adopt a “By Any Means Necessary” approach to sustain economic growth. An effective Competition Policy would need to be developed to prevent businesses from getting out of control in their zeal for sustained economic growth.
Competition Policy is “the application of established rules to make sure that companies compete with each other and, in order to sell their products, innovate and offer good prices to consumers.” The formal study of ‘competition’ dates back to the Enlightenment and the work of Adam Smith. The work that he is most known for, “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations” is the prominent dissertation on the political economy at the onset of the Industrial Revolution, and is generally considered to be the first contemporary work in the field of economics. The work is also the first all-inclusive justification of free market policies.
“When the quantity of any commodity which is brought to market falls short of the effectual demand, all those who are willing to pay the whole value of the rent, wages, and profit, which must be paid in order to bring it thither, cannot be supplied with the quantity which they want. Rather than want it altogether, some of them will be willing to give more. A competition will immediately begin among them, and the market price will rise more or less above the natural price, according as either the greatness of the deficiency, or the wealth and wanton luxury of the competitors, happen to animate more or less the eagerness of the competition.”
This primary source quote outlines a portion of Smith’s “invisible hand” theory that deals specifically with competition. The “invisible hand” theory states that if each consumer is permitted to decide without restraint exactly what to purchase, and each manufacturer is permitted to decide freely what to retail and how to manufacture it, the market will reconcile on a product distribution, and the cost that is beneficial to the all individual members of a society, and hence to the society as a whole. In the quote, Smith refers to the concept of competition as the means to reconcile the market price of a product that falls short of the demand. Smith’s ideas would provide the economic foundation of the common market. This foundation is important because the Single market is defined as a refined incarnation of the common market that provides for additional emphasis on removing the impediments that inhibit the member states such as the tangible (i.e., “borders”), procedural (i.e., “standards”) and financial (specifically, taxes). The definition of the Single market falls right in line with the primary objective of the European Union to foster cooperation amongst its member states by developing a common system of law and making member states’ economies completely interdependent.
The formation of the EU began as a calling for unity following World War II. There was a conference in 1948 at The Hague that provided a forum for the discussion of unification. There was still lingering division, but The Council of Europe was formed as a compromise to those in attendance. The Council still exists today as a means to defend human rights and to arbitrate any complaints against its member states, but falls short in establishing “stronger transnational institutions” that are vital to ensure proper European integration amongst its member states. Two French leaders would solve this problem by creating an institution had the same vision of an integrated Europe, but started with modest beginnings that would evolve from that point.
The EU that we know today started as the French-German Coal and Steel Authority in 1950. It would evolve into the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) in 1951 (documented by the ECSC Treaty) inspired by the inclusion of Italy, Belgium, Luxemburg, and the Netherlands. This would be the creation of the first common market in Europe as it was charged with coordinating the production and distribution of coal and steel. In 1957, the Treaty of Rome would bring about additional evolution and the ECSC would go on to create EURATOM to develop atomic energy and the European Economic Community (EEC) (also known as "the Common Market") to work towards abolishing tariffs between one another. The European Community (EC) formed in 1967, combining the EEC’s three organizations into one single entity. The abolition of internal tariff barriers would finally be achieved in 1968. The EC would gain considerable traction with the addition of Britain, Ireland, and Denmark. The Single European Act was signed in 1986 to launch a Single European Market by 1992, by removing the barriers to free movement of capital, labor, goods and services.
The foundation of EU competition policy draws from Article 3(f) of the EEC Treaty. This Article sought to guarantee that ‘competition in the Common Market is not distorted.’ The EEC Treaty outlined that this Article would be implemented through ‘rules on competition’, which outlined the EU’s authority to control cartels, monopolies, and oversight of state-aid. They have been expanded to include mergers between corporations and to detail provisions that deal with specific exceptions that have not been previously addressed. But the foundation largely remains intact from the ratification of the EEC Treaty in 1951 to today.
Throughout the evolution of EU competition policy, there are several landmark cases that have upheld the policy’s foundation with the EEC Treaty. These landmark cases cover the four major areas of competition policy: Cartels, Monopolies, Mergers, and State-Aid. The cases have validated European Union competition policy, developed a healthy respect from world leaders for its enforcement measures, and in some cases, provided impetus to make revisions to competition policy.
There is historical significance to beginning our discussion of landmark cases with the Vitamin Cartel breakup of Hoffman-La Roche. Cartels were the first entities to develop out of the Second Industrial Revolution as companies throughout Europe bonded together out of necessity to stay in business. At that time, factories were not receiving enough business to survive, let alone maintain economic growth. These firms would bond together to “monopolize” entire divisions of industry, by colluding to negotiate higher prices for their services and fixing higher prices in the marketplace.
The Vitamin Cartel breakup started when Stanley Adams, Hoffman-La Roche's World Product Manager in Basel, initiated contact with the EEC in 1973 with proof that Hoffman-La Roche had been violating antitrust laws, engaging in price fixing, and market sharing with its competitors. Hoffman-La Roche was fined appropriately, but the EEC botched the investigation by permitting Hoffman-La Roche to discover that Adams was behind the EEC investigation. He was subsequently arrested for illegal disclosure — a crime under Swiss law — and incarcerated. Then from 1990 until 1999, Hoffman-La Roche engaged in an illegal price fixing cartel for vitamins, which also included BASF and Rhone-Poulenc SA. In 1999, Hoffman-La Roche pleaded guilty in the United States and paid a $500 million fine, then the largest fine ever secured in the United States. The European Commission levied against Hoffman-La Roche €462 million for the exact same violation in 2001. The historical significance lies in the fact that these were record fines levied at the time, which drew worldwide attention to competition policy, not limited to EU competition policy.
The landmark case for a monopoly that we will use for this discussion is the Microsoft Antitrust Case. This case is one of the most significant antitrust cases due to amount of the fine and the extensive nature of the case. The case originated with a December 1998 complaint from Sun Microsystems alleging that Microsoft was refusing to supply it with interoperability information critical to interoperate with Microsoft’s PC operating system. Several companies including Novell and RealNetworks would be listed on the formal complaint. Microsoft was able to reach a settlement with these companies, but that did not prevent EU from levying a €497 million on Microsoft in 2003. Microsoft and EU would tangle back and forth through an appeals process that would last until October 2007, when all of the EU’s findings were upheld and Microsoft chose not to file additional appeals.
In 1998, WorldCom completed its $37 billion merger /purchase of its former competitor, MCI Communications. This merger was significant because it was the largest corporate merger in United States history. Immediately, the EU had concerns that the existing company would possess a prevailing position on the "backbone" of the Internet. After significant negotiations, MCI reached an accord to sell some of those data trunk lines to the British firm Cable & Wireless for $625 million. However, that would not enough to dispel concerns that the merged entity would possess too much jurisdiction over the future of the Internet. MCI would cave by agreeing not only to sell all of its Internet business, but also promised not to solicit its past Internet clientele for a predetermined period of time. The EU would later intervene in the combined companies’ proposed merger with Sprint Corporation, which would have been the largest corporate merger in the world, citing monopoly concerns with the combined company. The EU’s actions in this situation proved to the world that its enforcement was a force in the global economy.
The EU has been heavily involved in the regulation of state-aid to commercial industries, and of certain industry divisions and public services. The train system, power or gas serves as examples of public services that are being regulated by the EU. Article 4 of the Treaty of the EC delineates the EU liberalization program that has proved to be critical in easing the barriers that have been in place previously that have inhibited member states economic policy in this case.
So if the foundation of competition policy has not evolved from its inception in 1951, how has competition policy evolved in the EU? The answer lies not in the policy itself, but in the process in which competition policy developed. This process developed from the impact of 19th century Industrialization developing a problem, which was how to keep businesses’ honest in the wake of increasing pressure to maintain economic growth. The problem escalated from a problem to a need for a solution as social, political, and economic challenges that arose from 19th century Industrialization led to several tenures of Imperialism and two World Wars. These conflicts fostered numerous discussions in which a base set of solution requirements was developed in order to foster European integration amongst member states. Then a solution would be implemented in the form of a Treaty, along with initial set of rules and policies that had to be handed down to the member states. Finally, we had implementation, where the competition laws of the member states had to be toughened in order to match up with the policies of the European Union and an organization had to be developed to enforce these policies. This overall process is how competition policy evolved in the European Union from an initial problem to an established policy that is touted as a European success story.
“.... European competition policy is certainly a success story. From humble and highly controversial beginnings it has become a cornerstone of the Commission’s activities. Competition has never commanded such attention among commentators as it does today…”
This quote accurately reflects the conclusion that European Competition policy has evolved into a success story. As we continue to embark into the 21st century, there are challenges that lie ahead and European competition policy will need to maintain its foundation but continue to evolve in order to meet the challenges of a global economy.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The evolution of Competition Policy in the European Union (EU) is a direct result of a basic requirement to create a European single market. This basic requirement came as a result of the impact of 19th century Industrialization. The impact resulted in the need for greater productivity in less time, with increased efficiency to sustain economic growth. The marriage of invention with new technology created a new standard of living in a society that would come to expect for this standard of living to be maintained at all costs. European businesses, whether privately-owned or state-owned, were experiencing unprecedented growth with diversified revenue streams. As competition increased, European businesses were willing to adopt a “By Any Means Necessary” approach to sustain economic growth. An effective Competition Policy would need to be developed to prevent businesses from getting out of control in their zeal for sustained economic growth.
Competition Policy is “the application of established rules to make sure that companies compete with each other and, in order to sell their products, innovate and offer good prices to consumers.” The formal study of ‘competition’ dates back to the Enlightenment and the work of Adam Smith. The work that he is most known for, “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations” is the prominent dissertation on the political economy at the onset of the Industrial Revolution, and is generally considered to be the first contemporary work in the field of economics. The work is also the first all-inclusive justification of free market policies.
“When the quantity of any commodity which is brought to market falls short of the effectual demand, all those who are willing to pay the whole value of the rent, wages, and profit, which must be paid in order to bring it thither, cannot be supplied with the quantity which they want. Rather than want it altogether, some of them will be willing to give more. A competition will immediately begin among them, and the market price will rise more or less above the natural price, according as either the greatness of the deficiency, or the wealth and wanton luxury of the competitors, happen to animate more or less the eagerness of the competition.”
This primary source quote outlines a portion of Smith’s “invisible hand” theory that deals specifically with competition. The “invisible hand” theory states that if each consumer is permitted to decide without restraint exactly what to purchase, and each manufacturer is permitted to decide freely what to retail and how to manufacture it, the market will reconcile on a product distribution, and the cost that is beneficial to the all individual members of a society, and hence to the society as a whole. In the quote, Smith refers to the concept of competition as the means to reconcile the market price of a product that falls short of the demand. Smith’s ideas would provide the economic foundation of the common market. This foundation is important because the Single market is defined as a refined incarnation of the common market that provides for additional emphasis on removing the impediments that inhibit the member states such as the tangible (i.e., “borders”), procedural (i.e., “standards”) and financial (specifically, taxes). The definition of the Single market falls right in line with the primary objective of the European Union to foster cooperation amongst its member states by developing a common system of law and making member states’ economies completely interdependent.
The formation of the EU began as a calling for unity following World War II. There was a conference in 1948 at The Hague that provided a forum for the discussion of unification. There was still lingering division, but The Council of Europe was formed as a compromise to those in attendance. The Council still exists today as a means to defend human rights and to arbitrate any complaints against its member states, but falls short in establishing “stronger transnational institutions” that are vital to ensure proper European integration amongst its member states. Two French leaders would solve this problem by creating an institution had the same vision of an integrated Europe, but started with modest beginnings that would evolve from that point.
The EU that we know today started as the French-German Coal and Steel Authority in 1950. It would evolve into the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) in 1951 (documented by the ECSC Treaty) inspired by the inclusion of Italy, Belgium, Luxemburg, and the Netherlands. This would be the creation of the first common market in Europe as it was charged with coordinating the production and distribution of coal and steel. In 1957, the Treaty of Rome would bring about additional evolution and the ECSC would go on to create EURATOM to develop atomic energy and the European Economic Community (EEC) (also known as "the Common Market") to work towards abolishing tariffs between one another. The European Community (EC) formed in 1967, combining the EEC’s three organizations into one single entity. The abolition of internal tariff barriers would finally be achieved in 1968. The EC would gain considerable traction with the addition of Britain, Ireland, and Denmark. The Single European Act was signed in 1986 to launch a Single European Market by 1992, by removing the barriers to free movement of capital, labor, goods and services.
The foundation of EU competition policy draws from Article 3(f) of the EEC Treaty. This Article sought to guarantee that ‘competition in the Common Market is not distorted.’ The EEC Treaty outlined that this Article would be implemented through ‘rules on competition’, which outlined the EU’s authority to control cartels, monopolies, and oversight of state-aid. They have been expanded to include mergers between corporations and to detail provisions that deal with specific exceptions that have not been previously addressed. But the foundation largely remains intact from the ratification of the EEC Treaty in 1951 to today.
Throughout the evolution of EU competition policy, there are several landmark cases that have upheld the policy’s foundation with the EEC Treaty. These landmark cases cover the four major areas of competition policy: Cartels, Monopolies, Mergers, and State-Aid. The cases have validated European Union competition policy, developed a healthy respect from world leaders for its enforcement measures, and in some cases, provided impetus to make revisions to competition policy.
There is historical significance to beginning our discussion of landmark cases with the Vitamin Cartel breakup of Hoffman-La Roche. Cartels were the first entities to develop out of the Second Industrial Revolution as companies throughout Europe bonded together out of necessity to stay in business. At that time, factories were not receiving enough business to survive, let alone maintain economic growth. These firms would bond together to “monopolize” entire divisions of industry, by colluding to negotiate higher prices for their services and fixing higher prices in the marketplace.
The Vitamin Cartel breakup started when Stanley Adams, Hoffman-La Roche's World Product Manager in Basel, initiated contact with the EEC in 1973 with proof that Hoffman-La Roche had been violating antitrust laws, engaging in price fixing, and market sharing with its competitors. Hoffman-La Roche was fined appropriately, but the EEC botched the investigation by permitting Hoffman-La Roche to discover that Adams was behind the EEC investigation. He was subsequently arrested for illegal disclosure — a crime under Swiss law — and incarcerated. Then from 1990 until 1999, Hoffman-La Roche engaged in an illegal price fixing cartel for vitamins, which also included BASF and Rhone-Poulenc SA. In 1999, Hoffman-La Roche pleaded guilty in the United States and paid a $500 million fine, then the largest fine ever secured in the United States. The European Commission levied against Hoffman-La Roche €462 million for the exact same violation in 2001. The historical significance lies in the fact that these were record fines levied at the time, which drew worldwide attention to competition policy, not limited to EU competition policy.
The landmark case for a monopoly that we will use for this discussion is the Microsoft Antitrust Case. This case is one of the most significant antitrust cases due to amount of the fine and the extensive nature of the case. The case originated with a December 1998 complaint from Sun Microsystems alleging that Microsoft was refusing to supply it with interoperability information critical to interoperate with Microsoft’s PC operating system. Several companies including Novell and RealNetworks would be listed on the formal complaint. Microsoft was able to reach a settlement with these companies, but that did not prevent EU from levying a €497 million on Microsoft in 2003. Microsoft and EU would tangle back and forth through an appeals process that would last until October 2007, when all of the EU’s findings were upheld and Microsoft chose not to file additional appeals.
In 1998, WorldCom completed its $37 billion merger /purchase of its former competitor, MCI Communications. This merger was significant because it was the largest corporate merger in United States history. Immediately, the EU had concerns that the existing company would possess a prevailing position on the "backbone" of the Internet. After significant negotiations, MCI reached an accord to sell some of those data trunk lines to the British firm Cable & Wireless for $625 million. However, that would not enough to dispel concerns that the merged entity would possess too much jurisdiction over the future of the Internet. MCI would cave by agreeing not only to sell all of its Internet business, but also promised not to solicit its past Internet clientele for a predetermined period of time. The EU would later intervene in the combined companies’ proposed merger with Sprint Corporation, which would have been the largest corporate merger in the world, citing monopoly concerns with the combined company. The EU’s actions in this situation proved to the world that its enforcement was a force in the global economy.
The EU has been heavily involved in the regulation of state-aid to commercial industries, and of certain industry divisions and public services. The train system, power or gas serves as examples of public services that are being regulated by the EU. Article 4 of the Treaty of the EC delineates the EU liberalization program that has proved to be critical in easing the barriers that have been in place previously that have inhibited member states economic policy in this case.
So if the foundation of competition policy has not evolved from its inception in 1951, how has competition policy evolved in the EU? The answer lies not in the policy itself, but in the process in which competition policy developed. This process developed from the impact of 19th century Industrialization developing a problem, which was how to keep businesses’ honest in the wake of increasing pressure to maintain economic growth. The problem escalated from a problem to a need for a solution as social, political, and economic challenges that arose from 19th century Industrialization led to several tenures of Imperialism and two World Wars. These conflicts fostered numerous discussions in which a base set of solution requirements was developed in order to foster European integration amongst member states. Then a solution would be implemented in the form of a Treaty, along with initial set of rules and policies that had to be handed down to the member states. Finally, we had implementation, where the competition laws of the member states had to be toughened in order to match up with the policies of the European Union and an organization had to be developed to enforce these policies. This overall process is how competition policy evolved in the European Union from an initial problem to an established policy that is touted as a European success story.
“.... European competition policy is certainly a success story. From humble and highly controversial beginnings it has become a cornerstone of the Commission’s activities. Competition has never commanded such attention among commentators as it does today…”
This quote accurately reflects the conclusion that European Competition policy has evolved into a success story. As we continue to embark into the 21st century, there are challenges that lie ahead and European competition policy will need to maintain its foundation but continue to evolve in order to meet the challenges of a global economy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)