In the New York Times 2 weeks ago, Michael Pollan, author of two books from the bibliography (The Omnivore’s Dilemma, and In Defense of Food), published an open letter to the next president. In it he addresses the next “farmer in chief,” and advises:
[ . . . ] you will need not simply to address food prices but to make the reform of the entire food system one of the highest priorities of your administration: unless you do, you will not be able to make significant progress on the health care crisis, energy independence or climate change. Unlike food, these are issues you did campaign on — but as you try to address them you will quickly discover that the way we currently grow, process and eat food in America goes to the heart of all three problems and will have to change if we hope to solve them.
Resolarizing the food system means building the infrastructure for a regional food economy — one that can support diversified farming and, by shortening the food chain, reduce the amount of fossil fuel in the American diet.
I happened to see Michael Pollan speak this evening, here in Seattle, and in his talk he mentioned an interview (by Joe Klein of Time Magazine) with Barack Obama from this last week where Obama explains what he learned from reading the letter, and starts what will hopefully be a long conversation in our government on the not only the issues at hand, but how they in turn interconnect with so many others.
Bill Mckibben is the author of another selection from the bibliography, Deep Economy. The book is a fascinating essay on the idea of modifying our basic concept of what the economy is / can be, which addresses issues of food, the environment, entertainment, culture, and industrialism.
Above is an excerpt from a 55 minute video, where-in he gives a 20 minute speech, and answers some questions. The full video is available here.* In it, he bridges the gap between corporations + centralization, and food culture + civic relationship (as well as many other things).
The website hosting the video: FORA.tv has some great video features, including the ability to jump to highlights of videos, and displaying a synced transcript. They have a good number of other interesting talks that i will probably soon link to.
* Â Â i should say that he is not the best speaker, and that some of the correlations he draws are debatable, but this only slightly dilutes the talk he gives in this video.
Newscorp
Disney
Viacom
Universal Vivendi
AOL/Time Warner
Sony
Bertelsmann
If you’ve read a book, bought or seen a movie, watched any major TV station, or listened to almost any music on TV, radio, CD or iTunes, recently, you’ve accepted goods and services from one of these companies. The Media Giants, and their subsidiary holdings as of 2001, can be explored on the PBS page for their Frontline documentary, The Merchants of Cool.
The content of the website and documentary were both a little out of date even when i saw it on PBS in 2001 (things change quickly in this business), but it’s still good information about how things work[ed], and how the media business can be run, especially as it relates to kids.
Incidentally, there are currently 72 other Frontline documentaries watchable on the PBS website, many of which are on very significant topics, and are quite informative.
Some of you may have noticed a film just over there in the bibliography called “The Century of the Self.” It is a 4 part documentary, by Adam Curtis, which (in the director’s words):
is about how those in power have used Freud’s theories to try and control the dangerous crowd in an age of mass democracy.
The first part is below, and all four parts can be found here.
The Corporate Entity, as we now know it today, has what is perhaps a surprisingly long history, and certain intrinsic characteristics of which most of us has have ceased to take note, ceased to care, or never knew.
the wayback.
Corporations have existed for thousands of years, and are documented in ancient Rome and ancient India; the most significant difference at that time between an individual doing business, and a corpus (a “legal” body) doing business, was that the corpus was legally immortal. This was attractive because a business could survive it’s founders and members without having to start over every time, leaving survivors able to build on the extant trust and relationships, already in foundation.
Through the age of early political colonialism, corporations continued to grow in number and popularity, under the umbrella term of “chartered company.” At this time, companies were chartered by monarchs, to conduct specific kinds of business, and no others, under the provisions and allowances of the charter (the oldest corporation still in existence is (according to Wikipedia), the Swedish Stora Kopparberg, a mining operation chartered in 1347. The rules outlined by the granting monarchs were designed for the foremost benefit of their ruling aristocracy, as in the case of the British East India Company, which was granted a 15 year monopoly on all trade in India and Africa in 1600.
As the United States created what is most likely the first Republic in the history of the world in 1776,2 they modified the codes and goals of corporate charterdom to have primary benefit be to the public at large, rather than that of the men conducting business, or the share-holders of the company. (At this time, the share-holders were liable fully for any actions of the corporation, just as the owners and operators were, additionally, they had a prominent voice in the governance of the business, as described by most U.S. of A charters.) They upheld the ancient rule whereby: if the government deemed the company in violation of the charter, it could be abolished at any time. This format of charter was short lived, however, and changed in 1819, when the Supreme Court granted the corporate entity some new rights. The most significant being: 1) that a corporation’s charter is inviolable, and 2) (codifying and expanding long practiced corporate standards into law) the corporation’s status in the legal and public realm is that of an individual, not a collective of people, but a single “artificial person.”
The 14th amendment to the constitution in 1868, while written specifically to protect newly freed slaves from persecution, was taken up by corporate lawyers to greatly expand the definition and abilities of this “artificial person.” The Supreme Court ruled that a corporation was now able, under their interpretation of the 14th amendment, to be sued and to sue in court, and to own property (which can and often does include other corporations).
the present.
Over the course of history various other changes have occurred within business and tax law to give us a few more flavours of artificial people than existed in 1800. We now find the following basic types of business:
1) a sole proprietorship
2) a partnership
3) a cooperative
4) a corporation
Within the partnership there are general, limited, and LLP. The differences have to do with governance and liability. General partnerships have 2 or more partners who govern business, and are fully liable monetarily for any actions or failures, et cetera. Limited partnerships have 1 or more general partner, and many limited partners, Only the general partner is liable, but all partners limited or otherwise govern the business. An LLP, or limited liability partnership has only limited partners, though all still govern the business, that is, all partners have positions which are operational, but also similar to those of share-holders in a publicly owned corporation.
As per corporations, we have:
1) the S Corp
2) the C Corp
3) the LLC
4) the LLLP
5) the Series LLC
There are also the Nevada Corporation—which is distinct only in the allowances afforded by Nevada’s corporate charter for doing business in other states—and the Delaware Corporation, which is similar, but with even further expanded “latitudes” for managerial operation controls. Lastly is the Massachusetts Business Trust, otherwise called an unincorporated business organization which is an organization that can exist in any state despite it’s common name, but in all other respects is a mystery to me. Frankly, i just have never put any research into trusts, and relatively little into NGOs or NPOs (non governmental organizations, and not-for profit organizations), though that’s mostly because i’ve never started one, and that may well soon change.
In any case, S Corporations differ from C Corporations in taxation, while their structure is essentially the same. The exception being that the income of a C Corp is taxed as normal, where the income of an S Corp is not taxed, but is rather applied, Pro Rata, to each Shareholder. It’s also significant that hese two types are really just classes of the other types of business, by which i mean, they can overlap and you can have an S LLC or a C Series LLC.
An LLC is a limited liability corporation, working to protect it’s owners from debtors and financial failures just as an LLP protects it’s limited partners. An LLLP is the newest form of business in the list: a limited liability limited partnership, a sort of cross between an LLC and an LLP. Finally is the Series LLC, which is (to dumb it down a bit) a few LLCs working together with protection from one another, but operating as one company.
As i understand, most major companies are Limited Liability C Corporations.
Now, why have i gone through all this? to fully differentiate it from the newest kid on the block, the B Corp.
Rather than a classification with focus on how money exchanges hands, how taxation occurs, responsibilities to share-holders, or any other legal rights, the B Corporation classification focuses on doing good in the world. They shift the primary operational focus (as it is written in corporate law) from earning increasing profits per quarter for all share-holders, to doing so only if it is possible within social and environmental sustainability. This tends to change quite a lot in practical terms, as many companies choose to focus on that profit margin at considerable social and environmental costs. From the B Corp site:
B Corporations are a new type of corporation that are purpose-driven and create benefit for all stakeholders, not just shareholders.
B Corporations are unlike traditional responsible businesses because they:
Meet comprehensive and transparent social and environmental performance standards.
Institutionalize stakeholder interests.
Build collective voice though the power of a unifying brand.
They plan to do this by virtue of their B Lab, which:
[ . . . ] is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization governed by a process of broad, transparent multi-stakeholder engagement. The mission of B Lab is to support B Corporations and this emerging sector by 1) certifying and rating B Corporations through the B Ratings System; 2) developing and disseminating a legal framework to institutionalize stakeholder interests within existing corporate law; 3) recruiting and promoting B Corporations; and 4) helping B Corporations access purpose-driven capital markets.
Clearly, an exciting option, and one which the B Corporation website claims to already have 134 registered business, representing 31 industries, and more than $920 million in the marketplace.
The trailer above is for a Canadian documentary describing all the ways in which this new model of B Corporation has become necessary. That is not to say it’s an extended ad for the B Corp, in fact it never mentions the organization once, but rather simply presents what the filmmakers find to be wrong with the trends in our transnational corporatocracy: superseding governments, negatively effecting everything from developing nations, the environment, local economies, and social justice.
Please watch the film, and read about the B Corp.
1 The full 2.5 hour film “The Corporation” can be seen in it’s entirety on google video, in two parts: here (part 1) and here (part 2).
2 See ryan’s comment, below, and my response, and feel free to join the conversation.
USB (universal serial bus) is a computing communication standard, used for connecting electronic devices and allowing them to, well, do a lot of nifty things. Printers, mice, television receivers, and all manner of other doo-dads now connect to your computer via USB, and a few available USB ports on a computer have become—since the technology’s introduction in 1996—standard issue.
A particularly powerful capability of the USB hub you probably have something plugged into right now is it’s capability to supply [a small amount of] power to that external device. This allows recharging of cell phones and iPods, but also allows for a lot of stupid toys.
The USBCell takes the ubiquitous, nickel-metal hydride rechargeable battery out of the charging station, and into any recent computer. The only size currently available are AA ($18 for two), but other are expected to follow.
Of course, many gadgets (iPods and digital cameras especially) now use proprietary lithium-ion batteries, which rely on USB charging, or AC adapters.
Another option for these tools is to take the USB hub out of the computer altogether. Solio creates miniature solar generators that can be used to power your toys and tools in every corner of the globe (or your backyard). Thanks to an integral battery, you can let it collect the sun during the day, and charge your phone at night.
The EasyBloom takes readings of soil and environmental parameters (sunlight, humidity, temperature), and uploads the information via USB to your computer and their website, advising on what plants would be well suited to the present conditions, and advising action to improve the soil, if it is sub-optimum.
I’m not entirely sure how i feel about the EasyBloom (removing the gardener from a true understanding or relationship with the soil, as well as removing her/him from the need of a mentor, which i think is a another valuable relationship to cultivate), and yet, out of my interest in growing my own food, I’m tempted to get one for $60.*
On the other hand, i would probably prefer to not get anything new at all.
* note, this is not a paid advertisement, i have not received anything for these product placements. Although, i would probably accept an EasyBloom or solar charger for free, if one were offered. Wouldn’t you?
If you’re at all interested in the things i write / report on this blog, i would strongly suggest taking a good look at the links in the bibliography to the upper right of this post. If you’ve plans to buy any of the books, it might well be worth thinking about from whom it is you buy. Finding a local independent store to keep money in your local economy is important, and now relatively easy with the help of IndieBound:
IndieBound is about supporting independent bookstores and other businesses, and celebrating what makes them unique. It’s about reaching out, it’s about raising awareness, and it’s about taking pride in your community. It’s about what makes our hometowns more interesting.
If the convenience of browsing wide catalogues of books online with the option of easy ordering is appealing, certainly the used section of Amazon is pretty advantageous: recycling books as well as helping get some extra dough in somebody’s pocket (often that of an independent book store, working through Amazon’s used section, with Amazon cutting “a little off the top”).
Another important option though, is Better World Books. In their own words:
We’re breaking new ground in online bookselling. We believe that education and access to books are basic human rights. That’s why books sold on BetterWorld.com help fund high-impact literacy projects in the United States and around the world.
All books are available with free shipping to any location within the United States (or $3.97 worldwide). And in case you’re concerned about your eco-footprint, every order is shipped carbon neutral with offsets from Carbonfund.org.
Here’s the best part: In addition to selling new titles, Better World Books supports book drives and collects used books and textbooks through a network of over 1800 college campuses and partnerships with nearly 1200 libraries nationwide. So far, the company has converted more than 13 million donated books into $4.6 million in funding for literacy and education. In the process, we’ve also diverted more than 7,000 tons of books from landfills.
While the benefits of carbon offsets are debatable, it’s an exciting business model (and one i’ll be covering in more detail soon). You can read about the organizations with whom they’re working, and their adventures in helping around the world at the Better World Books Blog.
Maybe i have a skewed sense of how elections can go, and what politics and economics can mean, but maybe that’s because the first debates i ever watched were the 1992 debates featuring Bush, Clinton, and Perot. Perhaps also it’s because i used to spend a lot of time reading Karl Marx and Adam Smith. Maybe I’m not so worried about the “mud slinging” because i know it’s been a major feature of elections in the U.S. of A since the beginning, and mired the election of Thomas Jefferson just as it will mire our current election. Maybe it’s because my politics lie so far of center that my overwhelming sense of the recent debates are not how different the opponents are, but how similar they are.
I’m not exactly saying I’m a supporter of Ross Perot, or Ralph Nader, but neither do i support Barack Obama, or John McCain, or even Bill Clinton, Al Gore, the Bushes, or . . . anybody, at least not full-heartedly. There are good and bad aspects to all of them, though my problems are probably less with them as people than the system that has forced them to play certain games to be able to do any good. In any case, I suppose i’m just musing on how odd it is to find that even when paying a lot of attention, and being involved in the debates, and active in the spectator’s political game, it can yield a shade of the same apathy and cynicism as not having paid attention at all.
[ . . . ] what happens when you turn loose the raw materials of law [and government] and let people combine, remix, and analyze them [?].
James Grimmelmann, associate professor at New York Law School is working in collaboration with students on a project called “Open Access Law.” The project aims at getting an understanding of the law into the hands of the public by not only allowing free access to it, but giving users the ability to easily cross reference the information, and see the connections between laws and court cases, and similar cases in any other state.
The project is part of the Do Tank at NYLS, a group of students and faculty which “strives to strengthen the ability of groups to solve problems, make decisions, resolve conflict and govern themselves by designing software and legal code to promote collaboration.”
Other projects of the Do Tank include “Peer to Patent,” which serves as one model of “open governance” cited in a recent open letter featured in Popular Science: “Dear Mr. President,” by Daniel Engber, editor of online magazine Slate. In the letter, Engber directs himself at whomever might be elected president, advising in ways that technology can be used to improve democracy, he cites the Peer to Patent ides in a section of the letter called “The Distributed Brain:”
Here’s how it works: Government employees now spend much of their time checking that the ideas contained in a patent application are sufficiently novel and interesting. Peer to Patent allows them to recruit unpaid specialists from around the world by posting the applications online. Users migrate toward the technologies they find most interesting; for example, a patent for a novel way to network turbines on a wind farm might attract computer scientists and environmental engineers. They can also rate one another’s work or invite colleagues to participate. Then the Group hashed out their thoughts over the Web—not unlike creating a Wikipedia entry and passes the best ideas back to the [U.S.] Patent Office. That saves work for the clerks, and improves the quality of their research. It might also cut the costs of patent litigation down the road.
he continues:
Last year, [ . . . ] the Food and Drug Administration proposed a set of rules that would make sunscreen labels more comprehensive and accurate. But the agency has been swamped by several thousand comments in response, and is bound by law to review each one. In June, the FDA conceded that the final rules would be delayed indefinitely.
Now imagine if there were a system for the interested parties to manage themselves.
and proposes:
A Webby White House could go much further than this “ask a question, get an answer” approach. Your administration can become the first to post it’s data and documents online in a way that truly encourages transparency and accountability. [ this could be a ] wholesale shift of public documents into a searchable and structured database.
Among the many benefits of this approach is the possibility that government agencies could set up automatic feeds for specific information. [ . . . ] In other words, a citizen would be able to combine information from different offices to offer a clearer picture of how the government is working. He might merge cost estimates from the Congressional Budget Office with actual spending data, to see how often the government is shelling out more than it had planned.
[ . . . ]
Sure, that level of transparency might cause some inconvenience for even a well intentioned administration that’s relatively free of corruption. But in the long run, a push toward open government will build faith and support among your voters. And it will promote better decisions and more effective policies.
Wouldn’t it be exciting if democracy could be democratized to this extent?
