This Week:

Quote of the Week

“A Small Cost-Saving Concession”

“A Better Experience for the Consumer and the Advertiser”

Killing Animals to Save Them

Greetings,

There is a tragic story in the news these days in Minnesota about a young woman who has disappeared. A man has been arrested on suspicion of abducting her. Into this highly-charged context the governor of Minnesota has stated that he will attempt to reinstate the death penalty in our state. The last person put to death by the state Minnesota was in 1906. The death penalty has been abolished, in law or practice, in 110 nations around the world. Be sure to call your elected officials and state your position on this issue. Also, there is a group already in existence called Minnesotans Against the Death Penalty. Please support them. The Twin Cities contact person is Caroline Palmer, whose phone number is 612-373-9174.

There are lots of exciting things coming up in the month of December in Nygaard Notes. You don’t think I’m going to tell you what they are, do you? You’ll just have to wait...

...until next week,

Nygaard

"Quote" of the Week:

Even the dark cloud of budget crisis appears to have at least one silver lining, as this week’s “Quote” illustrates. It’s from the New York Times (“All The News That’s Fit To Print”) of November 10, 2003, the front page, headlined “With Cash Tight, States Reassess Long Jail Terms:”

“In the past year, about 25 states have passed laws eliminating some of the lengthy mandatory minimum sentences so popular in the 1980's and 1990's, restoring early release for parole and offering treatment instead of incarceration for some drug offenders. In the process, politicians across the political spectrum say they are discovering a new motto. Instead of being tough on crime, it is more effective to be smart on crime.”

“More effective to be smart.” Who woulda thought?

“A Small Cost-Saving Concession”

So many bad things are happening as a result of budget-cutting mania that I hesitate to single out any one or two. Still, the following excerpt from a local news story is worth noting, as it gives a hint of the myriad ways that relatively small budget cuts may end up having unexpected, and unexpectedly large, consequences.

All of the following words appeared in the Star Tribune on October 17th, on page B4:

“Two decades of advancement toward equal pay for equal work between men and women in government jobs in Minnesota could be reversed by a little-noticed change in state law, legislators learned Thursday.

“In the final rush of budget balancing in May, the Legislature loosened the law requiring regular gender pay-scale reports from 1,500 units of local government in two ways: an immediate two-year moratorium on the reports and a subsequent change in the frequency of reports from every three years to every five.

“The moves were seen as a small cost-saving concession to local governments that were being hit with deep cuts in state aid, tighter tax levy limits and increased mandates in other areas.

“In 1982, the year Minnesota began mandating efforts toward gender pay equality, women in state government jobs earned an average of 74 percent of the pay of men. By last year, women's pay was up to 97 percent. Among 220,000 local government employees, women's pay went from 80 percent of men's in 1995 to 92 percent in 2001, according to the Minnesota Department of Employee Relations.

“In the unregulated private sector, meanwhile, the so-called ‘earnings gap’ between the sexes has remained wide, with Minnesota women's median pay at 73 percent of men’s in 2000, according to the Legislative Advisory Commission on the Economic Status of Women.”

(In a story in the Business Section of the Star Trib on November 29, we learn of a study by the federal General Accounting Office that, in the U.S. as a whole, “even after controlling for hours worked, marital status, time away from the workforce and other factors, women earn only about 80 percent of what men take home.”)

Two things here: Although the current “Free Market” dogma says that “excessive regulation” is by definition a bad thing, here is an example of where government “regulation” has made a positive difference. Secondly, it’s awfully difficult to gauge the effectiveness of a law if the results of it are not reported, don’t you think?

This story also illustrates one of the ways it it is possible to render existing laws less effective, or meaningless.

• We can fail to monitor compliance, so we don’t know if a law is being broken, as in this case.
• We can fail to fund enforcement, so even if we know the law is being broken there is nothing done about it, as is the case with the IRS and wealthy/corporate tax cheats.
• We can fail to fund implementation of a law, so no one can afford to do what is legally required, as is the case with the continually-unfunded 1974 federal mandate to provide special education for kids with disabilities.

As the Star Trib reported in the current example, the cut in funds for reporting compliance with gender-equity laws “were seen as a small cost-saving concession...” I’m sure they were “seen” that way by some. But many of us “see” something else: We “see” a larger pattern into which these “concessions” fit. We see that we have a political leadership that finds it politically very difficult to simply say “We don’t care about equal pay for women. We don’t care that wealthy people and corporations routinely evade paying their taxes. We don’t care that disabled kids aren’t getting a good education.” We see that it is much easier for these “leaders” to create an ongoing budget “crisis” and then simply pass innumerable “small cost-saving concessions.”

“A Better Experience for the Consumer and the Advertiser”

“The trend to advertise in places that had until recently been advertising-free is accelerating, with two major marketers clambering aboard the booming brand wagon,” reports the NY Times of November 18th. The two items in this report are “the new Toyota Center in Houston, home of the Rockets and Comets basketball teams,” and “a monorail system that is scheduled to start serving Las Vegas in January,” sponsored by Nextel Communications.

“The stadium includes elements like a Lexus Lounge, Toyota cars and trucks parked throughout the arena and even a desk staffed by representatives of local dealerships who can answer questions about the Toyota and Lexus lineups...” Nextel will “underwrite the branding of the Convention Center stop as well as one of nine four-car trains with the Nextel name, logo and colors.”

“Executives at companies engaging in place-based marketing say,” according to the Times, “they are trying to carefully navigate the fine line between consumer interest and annoyance.” A Toyota executive in Houston says “We have not had a single negative reaction” to the promotional elements since the Toyota Center opened last month. Adds George Postolos, president and chief executive of the Rockets and Comets, the commercialization of the arena “is not as controversial as you might think.”

And here’s your rationale for the whole thing, Nygaard Notes readers, courtesy of Patrick Pharris, president and chief executive of Promethean Partners in Las Vegas, which is selling the sponsorships for the monorail system:

“The biggest brands in the world are saying, ‘We understand consumers are perhaps numbed to traditional advertising, and we have to engage them in our experience. Then the consumers are more likely to become brand proponents and tell their friends about it. If you can convert transportation to ‘transpertainment,’ he added, referring to the monorail, ‘it becomes a better experience for the consumer and the advertiser.”

Killing Animals to Save Them

I always say that there are two levels of propaganda. What I call Overt Propaganda tends to be specific and conscious. Propaganda that, on the other hand, is general and unconscious I call Deep Propaganda. In other words, Overt Propaganda is the thing you are supposed to believe. Deep Propaganda is what makes it believable. Consider the following news item.

In the Star Tribune of October 11th appeared a bizarre story about the latest attempt by the Bush administration to weaken the 1973 Endangered Species Act. (Of course, the Bush administration says “Our proposal is absolutely consistent with the Endangered Species Act.”) The article, which appeared on page 6, was a truncated and—might I say?—wimpy version of a lengthier article on the subject that was published by the Washington Post the same day. Credit to the Star Tribune for at least running a part of the story; it went almost unreported in the rest of the major U.S. media, according to a Lexis/Nexis search of the nation’s major newspapers for that week.

The lead paragraph conveys adequately, I think, the Orwellian nature of the Bush proposals:

“The Bush administration is proposing far-reaching changes to conservation policies that would allow hunters, circuses and the pet industry to kill, capture and import animals on the brink of extinction in other countries. Giving Americans access to endangered animals, officials said, would feed the gigantic U.S. demand for live animals, skins, parts and trophies, and generate profits that would allow poor nations to pay for conservation of the remaining animals and their habitat.”

The Post goes on to report that the rationale of the Bush administration is consistent with many other proposals “that pursue conservation through trade.” By reporting in this way, the Post implies that the “pursuit” of conservation is what is motivating the Bush proposal, and that the only serious disagreement with the Administration is in regard to the best way to “pursue” that goal. This is the Overt Propaganda of the piece, put out by “officials at the Department of Interior and Fish and Wildlife, who are spearheading many of the new policies.”

The Deep Propaganda: The Market Is All

So what is the Deep Propaganda here that one would have to accept, the ideas that would make this Overt Propaganda believable? Consider that the lead paragraph included the following words and phrases: “gigantic U.S. demand” and “access” and “profits” and “allow poor nations.” These phrases are all standard propaganda code-phrases. The propaganda here is the idea that these species are endangered because benevolent “Americans” lack “access” to opportunities to pay good money to “poor nations” who have some things we want. If these “poor nations” would just be allowed to make the “profits” that their comparative advantage in the marketplace offers them, then they would do the right thing. Poverty is the problem, in other words, and poverty can be alleviated by the workings of The Market.

Such beliefs are at the core of the international order that the U.S.-based elites have lived by and want to live by, which is an order composed of a “center” and a “periphery.” The wealthy countries are the “center,” making the decisions about what to produce and who to sell it to. The “poor nations” have the job of supplying the raw materials that the “center” needs to meet the “demand” of the rich consumers to whom they sell their products. If everyone would play their market roles, the thinking goes, then we’d all be fine, endangered species included.

Organizing the world economy along such capitalist lines is certainly one way to do things, but it’s not the only way. And, if that statement makes sense to you, here’s a personal anecdote to show you why you had better watch out:

I attended college for one ill-fated quarter many years ago, and one of my classes was called “Principles of Macroeconomics.” After a week or two, I noticed that the class was apparently mis-named, as the instructor (a high-powered guy, being a former chair of the U.S. President’s Council of Economic Advisors) clearly intended to talk only about capitalism, excluding any other “principles.” When I objected, I was considered to be rather odd, and my concerns were ignored. (Readers will begin to understand why I only attended college for one quarter.)

Back to the Washington Post article: Essentially, for this article to make any sense at all, one would have to accept as basically good and true that there is an international economic order that is governed by the fundamental “law” of supply and demand. We are supposed to accept that this world order—that is, a capitalist world order—is the best system possible. Indeed, its proponents would have us believe that this is the only order possible, and that we have reached, as some have said, the End Of History.

For those who have a bigger picture, another, quite different, explanation for the Bush administration’s proposal on endangered species suggests itself. Perhaps they are not “pursuing” conservation at all, but rather greater profits for some of their constituencies that stand to gain from the proposed changes. And their proposal, if adopted, has the added benefit for their class that it would reinforce a U.S.-centered capitalist world economy. I imagine that, if anyone at the Post suggested this sort of interpretation, they might be considered rather odd, and their concerns would be ignored.

This is why it is always important to read a newspaper—to read ANYTHING, for that matter—on at least three levels. It’s important to read the actual words, certainly. And it’s important to consider what additional facts you might need in order to make sense of those words. And, finally, it’s important to know your own ideology, political philosophy, and beliefs. Otherwise, the unwritten ideology—the Deep Propaganda—that the reporter assumes is shared by his or her readers will come to be your own ideology. And, little by little, and likely without your noticing, you’ll start getting used to things that used to seem crazy. Like killing animals in order to save them.