Imagine the aircraft of the president of France being forced down in Latin America on “suspicion” that it was carrying a political refugee to safety – and not just any refugee but someone who has provided the people of the world with proof of criminal activity on an epic scale.
Imagine the response from Paris, let alone the “international community”, as the governments of the west call themselves. To a chorus of baying indignation from Whitehall to Washington, Brussels to Madrid, heroic special forces would be dispatched to rescue their leader and, as sport, smash up the source of such flagrant international gangsterism. Editorials would cheer them on, perhaps reminding readers that this kind of piracy was exhibited by the German Reich in the 1930s.
The forcing down of Bolivian President Evo Morales’s plane – denied airspace by France, Spain and Portugal, followed by his 14-hour confinement while Austrian officials demanded to “inspect” his aircraft for the “fugitive” Edward Snowden – was an act of air piracy and state terrorism. It was a metaphor for the gangsterism that now rules the world and the cowardice and hypocrisy of bystanders who dare not speak its name.
In Moscow, Morales had been asked about Snowden – who remains trapped in the city’s airport. “If there were a request [for political asylum],” he said, “of course, we would be willing to debate and consider the idea.” That was clearly enough provocation for the Godfather. “We have been in touch with a range of countries that had a chance of having Snowden land or travel through their country,” said a US state department official.
The French – having squealed about Washington spying on their every move, as revealed by Snowden – were first off the mark, followed by the Portuguese. The Spanish then did their bit by enforcing a flight ban of their airspace, giving the Godfather’s Viennese hirelings enough time to find out if Snowden was indeed invoking article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states: “Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.”
From Common Dreams: http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/07/04
From Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ralph-nader/corporate-patriotism_b_3542125.html
The 4th of July is synonymous with patriotism. Tomorrow, all over the country, Americans will congregate to spend time with family and friends, barbecue, watch fireworks, and celebrate our nation’s independence. Many will recite the pledge of allegiance or sing the national anthem. Wouldn’t it be appropriate for the large corporations that were founded in the United States to show a similar acknowledgement of patriotism?
After all, these corporations rose to their enormous size on the backs of American workers. Their success can be attributed to taxpayer-subsidized research and development handouts. Not to mention those corporations that rushed to Washington D.C. for huge bailouts from the taxpayers when mismanagement or corruption got them into serious trouble.
How do these companies show their gratitude to their home country? Many of them send jobs overseas to dictatorial regimes and oligarchic societies who abuse their impoverished workers — all in the name of greater profits. Meanwhile, back home, corporate lobbyists continue to press for more privileges and immunities so as to be less accountable under U.S. law for corporate crimes and other misbehaviors.
In a survey conducted by the Center for Study of Responsive Law, twenty of the largest unions and twenty of the largest U.S. Chartered corporations were asked the following simple question on three separate occasions:
Do you think it desirable to have your CEO and/or your president at your annual shareholders meetings stand up on the stage and, in the name of your company (not your diverse board of directors), pledge allegiance to our flag that is completed by the ringing phrase “with liberty and justice for all?”
In this survey, nine of the twenty unions replied that they do “pledge allegiance to the flag …with liberty and justice for all” or, as a substitute, sing the national anthem.
Only two of the twenty corporations — Chevron and Walmart — responded with an explanation of their company’s view of patriotism, but declined to respond directly to the question. Some of the companies that chose not to respond are: Apple, GE, GM, Verizon, J.P. Morgan Chase and Co., AT&T, Ford, ExxonMobil, Bank of America and others.
Continue reading at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ralph-nader/corporate-patriotism_b_3542125.html
July 3, 2013
Climate change deniers should not be given a place in business coverage at a time when industries from agriculture to insurance are making real financial decisions dealing with its impact, according to some of the nation’s top business journalists.
Last month Media Matters reported that more than half of the climate change segments on CNBC this year cast doubt on man-made climate change. That network’s coverage drew criticism from top business journalists who said such coverage does not serve their viewers.
“It doesn’t seem to me at this point to be a point of serious controversy within the corporate establishment,” said Paul Barrett a Bloomberg BusinessWeek reporter (Bloomberg BusinessWeek‘s sister company Bloomberg News is a CNBC competitor). “The insurance industry, which is a key barometer of these things, has reached the conclusion that whatever your politics are on this, the costs of extreme weather are so great and the patterns over the last couple of decades are so distinct that the corporate establishment absolutely must recognize these risks.”
Barrett added, “It’s past the point of letting ideology shape the dollars-and-cents calculations that businesses are already making, it is not a question of whether business should do this, business is doing this.”
Michael Hiltzik, a veteran Los Angeles Times business columnist, agreed.
“I accept the evidence of climate change,” he said. “I don’t think I’ve ever run into a legitimate business leader or business owner in the course of my reporting who doesn’t. I think, for the most part, it is settled science and the debate is really over what to do about it.”
Hiltzik and others stressed that in business reporting, information is so vital to those running large and small companies that facts have to be on point and disregard political calculations.