Morning Fog

A Death Worth Noting - Richard Grossman

I had never heard of Richard L. Grossman until I read his obit today in the Washington Post, but it turns out that he was a leader of a number of progressive causes, based in particular on his opposition to the concept of "corporate personhood," which he reportedly found "repugnant and destructive." 

Morning Fog has often expressed the view that corporations are not, and should not be considered, "people" in the sense that they have all the rights of individuals.  Admittedly, there is a longstanding body of law on the other side of this issue, which established early on - and for good reasons - that corporations have certain of the attributes of individuals.  Grossman, it seems, was more radical than I, challenging even those early interpretations. 

In recent years, however, it seems courts, the Roberts Court in particular, have sought to expand the equation of individual and corporate rights far beyond what makes sense.  For that reason, I'd like to draw attention, belatedly, to Grossman's life, and his concerns about the same doctrine.

Let The Supremes Be Supreme

Political interest groups and some members of Congress are now suggesting that either Clarence Thomas or Elena Kagan (depending of course on their political point of view) should recuse themselves from consideration of the legal challenges to the new health care law.

This is just another manifestation of the current tendency for everything to be turned into a political issue.  But it's silly, and might do more harm than good.

I agree with the "experts" and court historians who suggest there are no grounds for suggesting recusal, either for Thomas or Kagan.  The rule is that each Justice decides whether there is any conflict of interest.  Let's not try to meddle in that.  Despite some really wacky decisions from the Roberts court (e.g., the grant of unlimited political spending to corporations), I believe that if we are to have any confidence in our Supreme Court, and in our government institutions generally, we must collectively assume two precepts to be valid:

• Those who serve generally take their oath of office seriously and seek to serve, defend, and uphold the Constitution.
• Those who serve attempt to perform their tasks without political or other bias, and recognize that, whatever their previous experience, their higher calling requires a different standard.

Without these underpinnings, we could have no confidence whatever in our courts or government agencies.  I would argue that the current climate, in which many people appear in fact to have lost that confidence, stems in part from the willingness of partisan politicans to throw our trust under a bus if it helps them make political points.  It's in that sense that those pushing for recusal now may be doing more harm than good.

Through history, it has become almost an adage that Presidents are often fooled by their Supreme Court nominees.  This occurs as a result of the second precept above.  More than once, a solidly "Democratic" or "Republican" justice, once having reached the bench, has dashed the expectations of those who appointed him/her by taking an unexpected juridical tack.  This Court, too, may harbor some surprises.  Let's give them the chance to prove they are above politics.

AT&T Wedding To T-Mobile Postponed

(Note: This item is cross-posted from The Tin Lizard)

How do I love it that the AT&T/T-Mobile merger seems doomed to disapproval?  Let me count the ways:

1.  The public interest will be served.  No sane and disinterested observer could look at this plan and harbor any doubt that it would constitute a serious reduction of competition.  AT&T is/was hoping to silence an annoying competitor by buying it, and not coincidentally as I understand, to acquire and monopolize spectrum.

2.  Consumers will be served.  It wasn't just the huge share of the cell-service market that the new entity would have had (effectively split only with its equally giant competitor, Verizon).  Among today's carriers, T-Mobile has been the innovator in cell phone services, offering new arrangements and lower prices that forced the "big guys" to sit up and take notice.  AT&T, by contrast, was the carrier that provided inferior services at high prices.  There is no doubt which of those business models would have had the upper hand in the planned merged company.    

3.  AT&T's arrogance may suffer a minor blow.  The company was insufferably cocky that its planned deal would go through, advertising as if it were a done deal, and chatting freely with business columnists about how it was certain of approval because of its lobbying influence.

4.  Lying was not rewarded.  Those ads the company was running were full of made-up statistics about creating 96,000 new jobs, a claim that has been largely debunked.  Most people recognize, I think, that mergers seldom if ever result in the creation of jobs; mass firings are far more likely.  AT&T also puffed up its chest with patriotic pride, claiming it would repatriate 5,000 offshore jobs because the U.S. is a great place to do business.  That wouldn't be a bad thing, and sounds as if it might have been doable; but there was that nagging question - if the company believed so strongly in the U.S. as a business environment, why were those jobs offshored in the first place?

All in all, the whole undertaking of the merger was hypocritical.  No one but AT&T execs need lament its failure (if indeed that is the final outcome).   If the merger doesn't go through, I would not be at all surprised to find that AT&T was out of the wirelesss business within a couple of years.   That might (or might not) reduce the number of players in the field, but at least it would have come about as the result of real competition.  (Ah, competition, a lass beloved and coveted by CEOs when seen from afar, yet unwelcome in their own beds.)

The Life Cycle Of Communications Technology

In the beginning, there was the word.   Actually, before that, there were probably the grunt and the gesture.  Communication between/among humans was a pretty simple thing, even when we moved on to smoke signals, written letters, and the telegraph.  All these media were intended for communication between one or two individuals on the sending end, and an equally small number on the receiving end.

Then came the mass media.  A marketer's dream, if not a marketer's invention.  My recent post on robocalls to cell phones put a new spin for me on the historical development of our mass media.  Of course, one reading is that we advance from one system to another because technology makes it possible, and because we reap improvements of some kind - increased speed, a wider reach, or better audiovisual clarity. There is some truth in that.

Yet from the consumer's perspective, it's also possible to see our progression as a constant cycle of advertising-avoidance.  I recall the days when radio had actual "shows" that people tuned in to (Fibber McGee and Molly, for example, or Jack Benny).  Eventually, though, AM radio became so thickly infused with advertising that people flocked to other media:  FM, then television. 

Television was an advertising medium from the git-go, but there was a time when the FCC had some reasonable limits on the minutes of advertising that could be programmed in an hour; in my observation, these seem to have been relaxed to the point where they have become almost meaningless.   Cable TV brought some relief for a while; until cable introduced its own ads.   Viewers are now fleeing in droves toward DVDs and streamed videos of movies and television shows.

In voice communications, our home telephones (the old hard-wired variety)  were transformed from their original usage as instruments of that old-fashioned one-to-one communication (call Mom on Mother's Day!  Hear from Junior who was in the Peace Corps halfway around the world!) into just another means of opening ourselves up to the assault of hucksters.  We have learned to fear the telephone, which became less and less purposed toward "reaching out" and more and more utilized by businesses, political causes, and charities trying to "reach in" -- to our wallets.  (At my house, we are currently getting about 10-15 of these per day.)  Again, consumers took flight to caller ID and to the relative quiet of their cell phones, which were protected to a degree by the restrictions that H.R. 3035 seeks to weaken.  

This view of the life cycles of our media technology offers a strong rationale for resisting the current efforts to relax restrictions on automated calls to cell phones.  Unfortunately, it also implies that ultimately the battle will be lost, and we'll find ourselves waiting for the next new thing in voice communication that will promise - and perhaps even deliver, for a short period - escape.  

    

Meaningful Holidays - And A New Calendar For Them

I've long thought that Thanksgiving, now just two days away, was the quintessential "American" holiday because of its non-denominational aspect.   All of us celebrate Thanksgiving in one way or another, regardless of religious beliefs.  It's something we all have in common, and something we all share.  Further, Thanksgiving remains the only holiday that has not (yet) become just another excuse to go out shopping.  It has by and large preserved its meaning.

Now, however, Thanksgiving is under attack.  First, with the supercommittee on the deficit seemingly at a bitterly partisan dead end, it begins to appear that Thanksgiving is the ONLY thing we all share these days.  Can it survive in today's politicized environment?  Further, the greater threat is that commercialism is slowly gnawing its way into Thanksgiving, seeking to turn it into yet another shopping spree.  The Tin Lizard recommends boycotting the barbarians, but it's not likely they will be stopped. 

Nearly three years ago I wrote my ambitious new calendar of American holidays.  No one has seen fit to implement it yet, but with Thanksgiving under attack, it seems this may be an opportune time to revisit it, which you can do here.

Robocalls - Coming Soon To A Phone Too Near You?

A reader recently asked me if I'd heard of legislation being proposed that would permit automated phoning to people's cell phones.   I hadn't, and it took a little while to track down (not a mention of it on the FCC website, for example), but I did find a pretty thorough rundown on it at TheInternetPatrol.com. 

The basics are that a coterie of companies and their Congressional friends are sponsoring legislation to roll back some of the protections against annoyance calls to cell phones that have existed since at least 1991.  They propose to legalize "information calls" to cell phones.  I recommend reading the full letter that supporters sent to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, which is carried at the link above. 

A letter to a Committee chairman, of course, is far from a done deal.  The legislation, known as H.R. 3035, might not get voted out of committee; it might not pass the House; it might get a thumbs down from the Senate.   Still, the potential for invasion of privacy is clear, so we owe "Internet Patrol" a hats-off for helping bring the matter to public awareness.

Of course, the legislation appears reasonable on its face.  They only want permission for "informational calls," like aircraft arrivals, overdue bills, or a breach of your credit card.  Many people probably find these services convenient and desirable.  But concerns arise for a number of reasons:

• Sure, just "informational" and not "telemarketing," but does anyone really believe that many firms (OK, even if it's just the "unscrupulous" ones) will limit themselves to that?  How would the line between information and selling be drawn?
• Proponents argue that earlier restrictions were motivated primarily by the high per-call costs of incoming cell phone calls at the time, and suggest this is no longer a concern.  However, the proposed law ignores the second reason for the 1991 legislation, which was privacy from telemarketers.  For most of us that's still a concern.
• A phone call is not the only way this information can be delivered.  It can be sent by e-mail, a channel of communication that is already polluted by the noxious fog of advertising (not to mention scamming).  Anyone who has a cell phone has e-mail on it (and is constantly checking it - while driving, while in a job interview, while standing at the altar.  Phoning is not necessary.
• The bill would allow automated calls to anyone who had ever provided their phone number before, in any context.  Consumers have a right to be suspicious if no provision is made requiring a new opt-in for "information" calls, and one for each specific company.

This proposed legislation seems fairly typical of the topsy-turvy way rulemaking is approached these days.  Special interest groups write their own legislation, line up a few malleable Congresspersons to sponsor it, create a story line to go with it, and try to sell it before the public can become aware, or government agencies can react. 

The Internet Patrol suggests writing the Congressmen who are sponsoring H.R. 3035.  But as they point out, most Congressmen don't read or accept mail from people who aren't their constituents.  So I'd suggest writing your own Congressman.  If you find phone calls about such things as overdues bills convenient and welcome, maybe you should at least call for appropriate definitions and safeguards against abuse, which there most certainly will be.

 

To The Max

A lot of worthwhile content in Kathleen Parker's column today.

Getting The Small-Business Myth Out Of Bed

Isn't the word "debunk" great?   First, it's one of those that has no "positive" form, like "unkempt."  So if you debunk something you can never rebunk it.  And how did it get bunked in the first place?

Second, it sounds a lot like what it means:  throwing something/someone out of a comfy bed.  Sometimes ideas take root and form a body of knowledge that everyone "knows," yet which is false.  That's the origin of "myth," something that in time grows larger than life through the overemphasis and exaggeration of certain perceived characteristics in which there may be a kernel of truth.   For example, the strength of Atlas or the patience of Job. 

Every society has its own myths. The U.S. is no exception.  We tend to share a mental image of our farmers, for example, as self-sufficient families tilling the soil of a few dozen acres of land they own.  This was true once but it's been untrue, in the main, for at least two generations, as the share of farming done by agrobusiness concerns has grown by leaps and bounds.  Still, we cling to the idea of the small family farmer, which makes realistic adjustment of our agricultural policies very difficult.

Another myth from which we suffer in making public policy is that "small business" is the engine of our national economic prosperity.   We hear "small business" and, egged on by our politicians who know that giant corporations don't evoke the same warm, fuzzy feelings that "family businesses" do, we think of the mom-and-pop store.  But those aren't the businesses that statisticians are referring to when we're told, for example, that "small business" creates the great preponderance of jobs in the U.S.  That statistic is based on inclusion of businesses whose annual sales may be in the multimillions. 

Occasionally, economists attempt to correct this false impression.   A recent example, and one well worth reading, is James Surowiecki's "Big Is Beautiful," in The New Yorker of October 31.  Among Surowiecki's telling points:  (1) Small businesses generally are less productive than those giant corporations with their economies of scale.  (2)  If "small business" (however defined) truly creates many jobs, it also destroys most of them because a huge percentage of small businesses don't survive their first year; and those that do often aren't really interested in becoming supercompanies, they're just looking for a basic income for their family and an independent way of life.

Nothing wrong with that.  As a matter of public policy, we may indeed want to facilitate small businesses if we believe it is desirable that this avenue to independence be open and accessible.  We should not, however, base planning for our economic recovery and growth on false assumptions about the role of small business in our economy.  The small business myth has found a comfortable warm bed at the heart of our political thinking about economic matters; it's time for it to be debunked.

Flag-Waving

School is a complicated place these days, especially in complicated California.  In Morgan Hill, in that state (where?), there has been a bit of a kerfuffle over what to wear to school on Cinco de Mayo.  It seems kids of Mexican heritage and/or nationality sport Mexican flags in observance of the day; some Anglo kids evidently decided to wear American flags.  There has been violence on this day in the past, so the school banned the wearing of the U.S. flag on the grounds students who wore it were endangering themselves.  A U.S. court agreed and let the ban stand.  

Multiculturalism?  Sure.  All nationalities have tended to celebrate their own holidays in the U.S.  But there are differences.  I don't recall German-Americans or Chinese-Americans making much of a deal of observing their special days in school; and while it's true Italian flags get waved on Columbus Day, and Irish ones on St. Patrick's, the focus is more on the national colors than on the flag qua flag.  In those St. Pat's parades, you'll see as many American flags as you do Irish - often both being carried by the same people.

That apparently isn't the case in Morgan Hill.  It seems fairly evident that those wearing U.S. flags were reacting to something - specifically, to the wearing of Mexican flags.   Are the Mexican aficionados sporting both Mexican and U.S. flags?  I would guess not. Would a student wearing both flags be attacked?  Would it make a difference if that student were a Latino or an Anglo? 

I can understand the court's thinking on this.  But not its decision. If the American flag was a danger to its wearers, it could only have been because the Mexican flag is an equally dangerous - and I suspect purposeful - provocation.  If danger is the concern, the school should ban the use of both flags.  The court ought to have been able to incorporate this simple reality into its decision. 

Your Name In Headlines? Not Necessarily A Good Thing (III: Perry)

Last, and in my mind, least, in this little series, is Rick Perry.

Much has been made in the media of the fact that, in one of those "debates" among the various Republican candidates, Perry stumbled in not being able to remember the third department of government he intended to eliminate. 

Is this really serious?  Give me a break!  This sort of disconnect is so common we even have a well-known colloquialism for it:  Brain freeze.    It happened to me once, 20 years ago in a semi-critical meeting where I opened my mouth to speak and just couldn't connect my tongue to my brain.   ABC news reporter John Berman found a whole bunch of prominent cases.  It happens, especially (as Berman goes on to explain) in cases of pressure or tension.

Perry's candidacy may be in trouble but if so, it's for far more substantial reasons.  Time to stand down on this one, unless Perry repeats the performance several times.