Lemonisms and Donaghisms: 30 Rock’s definition of charity

There are so many lovely, nice, kind-hearted people out there. Seriously, if you did the math, I’m certain that there are proportionally a lot more nice people than bad people out there. If it were only dependent on that proportion, we would live in a wonderful world. And yet we don’t.

Why bodes the question: why? Why is it that at my former job, a group of 50 people who were, as individuals, lovely people, couldn’t create a great work environment, eliciting a constant turnover that decreased the quality of the work we did?

One of the reasons seems to be that people don’t know how to channel that ‘niceness’ into making the world a better place. And one hilarious yet sobering episode of 30 Rock demonstrates that perfectly.

Warning: 30 Rock final spoiler!

In a bid to save the man who might or might not be his father, Jack Donaghy calls in a few favours from his celebrity friends (including Mary J Blige, Clay Aiken and Sheryl Crow) to participate in the ‘Kidney Now!’ charity event aimed at finding his father a (you guessed it) kidney.

First of all, I found it a little ironic that Jack Donaghy, who himself wasn’t all that enthused at the idea of giving his potential father a kidney (were he to be a match) is now so eager to find someone else to go through the entire (rather painful) procedure to save the life of a complete stranger.

Then we come to the heart of it: what people actually do as charity and what they should be doing. Service is about doing what needs to be done – not doing what you want to do. There are so many causes out there that to find something that not only needs to be done, but also interests us is quite possible. But then again, it’s not just the cause that matters. What we actually do matters a lot more.

It reminds me of a drive done by college students here in Quebec. They were raising awareness about child labour in sweat shops and collecting signatures while wearing clothes and paraphernalia from brands known to use child labour. It might be argued that most big brands use child labour and/or sweat shop labour, and that the brands that don’t usually are not affordable by the masses. To this I answer: first of all, non sweatshop brands are affordable, they just aren’t considered cool enough to spend money on; and second of all, shouldn’t then the event be about raising awareness and creating environments in which we can address the cause of this problem, i.e. the intense consumerism that is affecting our society?

Another example of good intentions veering slightly off track is yet another college student initiative. The UNICEF chapter at Concordia organised a Karaoke night to raise money to buy bed nets in Sub-Saharan Africa. While it’s great that they are going to be sending money for bed-nets, the event didn’t raise any awareness, nor did it answer a couple of very important questions, like: why is malaria such a big problem in the first place? Why aren’t there already bed nets available for these people? Why hasn’t more research been put into malaria by pharmaceutical companies into developing more efficient and cheaper preventative medication, as well as more efficient treatments? Why are the conditions so unsanitary that the mosquito population explodes, so much so that the incidence of malaria sharply rises? How are we, as North American consumers, perpetuating a society in which this situation has been created in the first place and isn’t being resolved?

Wow. That’s a lot of questions.

On a lighter note, it also reminds me of the pilot of the Fresh Prince of Bel-Air; Hilary Banks is participating in an event to raise awareness about the environment. The event requires her and many other celebrities to drive around Los Angeles in a bus all day and ends with a giant bonfire. Will Smith’s puzzled expression is priceless – and probably mirrored my own.

I sometimes feel like Scrooge when I talk like this; after all, like I already mentioned, none of these people are mean, and in no means am I against them or what they are doing. Quite the contrary: they really want to help, which is why they are involved in these charity events. But let’s face it: it’s definitely not enough. If it was, the world would be a better place. And while we should continue our current charity and service endeavours, we need to reflect on why they aren’t working proportionally to the energy we put into them and consult with like-minded people about how to improve our endeavours. Through a process of action, reflection, deepening and consultation, we can further our understanding of the world around us as well as the effect of our actions on it. And because we will slowly become more and more successful in making the world a better place, one little step at a time, perhaps more people will join this process of action, reflection, deepening and consultation – and, even if we are a bunch of 7 billion imperfect human beings with lots of issues, we will figure out a way of living in a great world.

It’s worth a shot, no?

Going barefoot for a Cause

This is a very inspiring story – especially considering the age of the person of interest.

<!– –>My barefoot challenge

By Bilaal Rajan, Friday April 24th 2009

About: Toronto-based author, fundraiser and UNICEF Canada Ambassador Bilaal Rajan is 12 years old and has raised almost $5 million for programs worldwide. During National Volunteer Week (April 19 to 25), he spent seven days without shoes to better understand what millions of underprivileged children in the Global South go through every day.

My Take: For the past few years, I have participated in the 5 km World Partnership Walk in Toronto, which raises funds to fight global poverty. It always makes me think of what children in developing countries, many of whom cannot afford shoes, must experience. As a UNICEF Canada Children’s Ambassador, I visited countries in South-East Asia and Africa and met with children who walk miles every day barefoot to fetch water, work on their farm lands, go to school, or perform other chores.

So I decided to start the Barefoot Challenge, where I would live life without shoes for a week to help raise awareness about child poverty in our world.

On Sunday, April 19, I was featured in a documentary, Yes We Can, produced by In Sync video, that premiered at the Sprockets Film Festival in Toronto, where the challenge officially kicked off. Right before the film festival, I was interviewed by the CBC. I’d like to think I was the first person to do a CBC interview without shoes!

Read the rest of this great story here.

It’s a bird! It’s a plane! It’s Superman… Or is it?

Sometimes, being the change implies getting out of your comfort zone, getting out there and doing what needs to be done. And, however cute and funny the people in the story below are, you have to admit: they are doing what they can to help. Even if they kind of look funny doing it.

Perhaps, instead of laughing at them, we should consider what kind of world we would live in if everyone decided to dedicate their lives to helping others.

Masked Superheroes Patrol Cincinnati Streets

By Kevin Poulsen, April 20th 2009

Evildoers beware! A team of self-styled crime-fighters called the “Allegiance of Heroes” has taken to patrolling the mean streets of Cincinnati, righting wrongs and defending the defenseless. The superheroes — who carry handcuffs, pepperspray and stun guns, but no batarangs — are part of a global network of masked avengers who organize and team-up through the online World Superhero Registry.

This awesome video from Cincinatti’s WLWT focuses on 21-year-old Shadow Hare, the leader of the Allegiance. Shadow Hare has joined with superheroes in other states to fight crime. ”I’ve even teamed up with Mr. Extreme in California — San Diego — and we were trying to track down a rapist,” he told the station. As io9 notes, what could possibly go wrong?

Check out the video here.

What we want, What we say and What we do: Not quite the same

As Sahar’s Blog has been evolving, I have been talking to more and more people around about the various subjects it covers. After all, the whole point is to create a forum where various points of views are represented, not just mine! And it always surprises me how people want one thing, say another thing and do something totally different.

Take the example of the elimination of poverty. Everyone wants poverty to be eliminated. Everyone says they will help by donating money to various causes. But many of those who dared answer the last question didn’t put their money where their mouth was.

The conversation became even more interesting when I pointed out that poverty wouldn’t be eliminated by donating money, but rather when the way we do things changes and, more fundamentally, when the reasons behind our actions change. It was amusing and, at the same time, a little sad to see how some would fidget uncomfortably when I would ask them what they would be willing to sacrifice of their cushy north american lives to help the lives of millions of others.

Which is why I found the article below, by MacLean’s very own Mark Steyn,  so interesting – even if I don’t agree with all of it.

What Bono says and what he does

There’s a well-documented reason the do-gooder can’t put his money where his mouth is

After playing the Obama inauguration a couple of months back, the pop star Bono flew back home to a rare barrage of hostile headlines. As you know, the global do-gooder wants us to send more of our money to Africa. So why is he sending his money to the Netherlands? From the Irish Times:

“Bono ‘Hurt’ By Criticism Of U2 Move To Netherlands To Cut Tax.”

U2 hasn’t, in fact, moved to the Netherlands. You won’t find them busking outside downtown Rotterdam mosques of a Friday night. But they did move some of their business interests from the Emerald Isle to the Low Countries. From the Times of London: “Bono Hits Back Over Tax Dodging Claims.”

Actually, he didn’t really “hit back” except in the mildest way, protesting that there was nothing “hypocritical” about being an “activist” and taking advantage of favourable “financial services” arrangements in the Netherlands, and that in any case U2 “pay millions and millions of dollars in tax.” Hey, so what? Any old Halliburton robber-baron pal of Dick Cheney can make the same claim: paying “millions and millions” counts for nothing when you’re supposed to be paying millions and millions and millions and millions. From the Belfast Telegraph:

“U2 Frontman Bono’s Tax Avoidance ‘Depriving Poor.’ ”

According to Nessa Ni Chasaide of the Debt and Development Coalition Ireland, U2 has consciously deprived the Irish exchequer of revenue needed for overseas aid. “While Bono has championed the cause of fighting poverty and injustice in the impoverished world,” said Miss Ni Chasaide, “the fact is that his band has moved parts of its business to a tax shelter in the Netherlands. Tax avoidance and tax evasion costs the impoverished world at least 160 million U.S. dollars every year.”

Oh, come on. It doesn’t cost “the impoverished world” anything. It’s Bono’s money, not theirs. And who’s to say, even if he did give it to the government, that they’d stick it in the mail to some Afro-Marxist kleptocrat as opposed to squandering it closer to home? I’m with the U2 lads on this: I think the caterwauling rockers know better how to spend their dough than the state does. I’m entirely sympathetic to the wish of Timothy Geithner and the other A-list tax delinquents of President Obama’s administration not to toss one more penny than the absolute minimum into the great sucking maw of the government treasury.

Unfortunately, that’s not an argument a celebrity “activist” like Bono can easily make. So his “hitting back” consisted mostly of sitting back while the Bono impersonator Paul O’Toole stood outside the Department of Finance in Dublin singing his own version of U2’s I Still Haven’t Found What I’m Looking For—i.e., a jurisdiction with zero per cent tax rates for billionaire rock stars. U2 Ltd. actually moved to the Netherlands a couple of years back, about 17 nanoseconds after the Irish finance minister removed the tax exemption on “artistic” income above 250,000 euros. This was round about the time of Bono’s Live 8 all-star African-awareness-raising rock gala, but the world was too busy Rocking Against Bush to pay any attention. It’s only in the last few weeks that charities and NGOs and “justice groups” have decided to make an example of the unfortunate warbler.

But here’s my question: instead of arguing whether U2 Ltd. should be based in Dublin or Amsterdam, why not move it to Africa? After all, it’s essentially a licensing operation, so it doesn’t have any physical product to warehouse or ship other than the occasional PDF or MP3. All you need’s a phone line and a computer. Or, at the very least, why doesn’t Bono outsource U2 Ltd.’s tax preparation to Africa? With the invention of the Internet, India’s accountants started mugging up on 1099s and Schedule C and the other salient features of the U.S. tax code and have managed to snaffle a percentage of the American tax-filing bonanza away from H&R Block. Why couldn’t Bono open up a small accountancy firm in Bangui or Bujumbura? If he’s so eager to help Africa, wouldn’t that be a great vote of confidence?

Read the rest of this thought-provoking article here.

Be the Change: Overcoming Our Bad Habits

Here is a lovely little piece by CBC’s Heather Mallick worth the read and definitely worth the time to reflect on.

Give up your rage

A Viewpoint by Heather Mallick, posted on CBC.ca on Friday, April 17th 2009

Susan Boyle’s glorious performance on Britain’s Got Talent last week — it went wild online — was many things to many people.

Initially, it was a hideous display of the customary cruelty meted out to the homely. And make no mistake, reality TV shows are the Noughties version of the bear-baiting that kept the Elizabethans entranced.

But Boyle’s was also that perfect voice serving as antidote to the sinus-blasting belters like Mariah Carey who have ruined our morning shop at Loblaws for years now. The heart-hurting, pop love anthem is back, this time with civilization, and for that I thank you, Susan Boyle.

But what I noticed most when viewing this treat for the first time was the sudden reversal of our schadenfreude — the malicious enjoyment we are taking in each other’s misfortunes, particularly as the economic crisis endures.

The judges and audience were mocking Boyle before she even opened her mouth. How foolish they looked a few seconds later, after she began her song. They were the ugly people.

Pity the beauteous

Most people have lost money, not to mention self-esteem, in this past year. But the sinking economy has neither ennobled us nor made us worse. The judges and audience members who openly sneered at Boyle as she prepared to sing are the norm and always will be.

I’d also note that this type of venom sprays in all directions. Horrible Simon Cowell initially treated Boyle with actual revulsion. (Hey, Simon, did you know that Cowell was serial killer Ted Bundy’s real surname? You can’t help that, I know. But neither can Boyle help being poor.)

Still, it’s almost as common for homely people to deeply resent the beauteous. Boyle doesn’t, but many do. Beautiful people have a hard time of it.

Tina Fey recently wrote an episode of 30 Rock starring Jon Hamm, the unnervingly handsome actor who plays Don Draper in Mad Men. Fey’s Liz Lemon character is dating Hamm, who plays “Dr. Drew.”

Drew is a doctor who doesn’t know the Heimlich manoeuvre, a cook who thinks salmon works with Gatorade sauce, a man “who’s worse at sex” than Liz Lemon.

Because he is so handsome, no one has ever told him the truth.

Pop the bubble

Beautiful people are “in the bubble,” that protective casing that gets them ludicrous compliments, free drinks and all the sex they want. It’s nice inside the bubble. As long as you’re not aware of how much the rest of us secretly hate you.

What seems to have changed now, though, is that being hated is up for grabs. Whose downfall will have us smirking?

Yes, it’s arresting to see CEOs demonized for taking tens of millions in bonuses while running companies into the ground and it’s odd to see grown men weeping in their driveways after a bus tour of haters rattles through their gated community.

But these men are all still insulated by extraordinary wealth. As Rhett Butler replied when Scarlett said money can’t buy love: “Generally it can. But when it can’t, it can buy some of the most remarkable substitutes.”

Read the rest of this article here.

Populist rage: Any hope the 1789 French Revolution will become The 2009 Global Revolution? Part I

I was going through some old papers a couple of weeks ago (spring cleaning and all that jazz) and found notes I had taken on the French Revolution all the way back in High School. This is one of the very few things I had kept from that time, for the event had left quite an impression on me.

I had been 7 or 8 years old when I had my first class about the French Revolution, but even then it struck me how it was the little people, the ‘nobodies’ (i.e. the of 1789, who brought about the massive changes that define the French Revolution. Like most other historical events of this magnitude, it has definitely been romanticized, but the fact remains that, at its core, the French Revolution was the uprising of an outraged population asking for social justice.

Consider the facts: the French Revolution was, in (very) short, the boiling over of years of frustration. One factor was the widespread famine and malnutrition, bringing about disease and death. King Louis XV’s involvement in many wars and Louis XVI’s support of the colonists during the American Revolution emptied out the country’s coffers and forced them to go deep into debt. So what did they do to get more money? They increased taxes, and unjustly so as the poor were shouldering a disproportionately large portion of it. Meanwhile, Louis XVI and his wife, Marie-Antoinette, continued living lavishly.

Meanwhile, dangerous ideas (for the royalty, that it) were being discussed amongst those suffering the most. The rise of Enlightenment ideas and philosophies made more and more people question the absolute character of the royalty as well as the numerous privileges granted to a lazy nobility. It didn’t seem right that the hard-working professional and mercantile classes were the ones working so hard and yet still suffering so.

And so the population rose up and demanded justice. Imagine, in a country where royalty used to be akin to divinity, the king and queen were both beheaded.

Far be it that I am encouraging such a violent revolution against the forces of injustices that are operating today. After all, that was the end of the 18th century, and we are nine years into the 21st century. However, the injustices are just as rampant today as they were then, the proportion of people suffering around the world is probably about the same, if not more, and the changes required will be just as painful to put in place today as they were back then.

Don’t be fooled by the seeming eloquence of this post; it took quite some musing before I wrote it, and that only happened after I saw Jon Stewart’s interview with Jack Cafferty (watch the clip of the interview here).

And, of course, the part that made me click (finally) was the following:

Jon Stewart: There is a lot of talk about populist rage. (…) Is there a stirring up of a population that feels helpless and therefore will become destructive, or is there something constructive in people getting upset? Because Americans, when they get upset… You know, you look at other countries man and when they get upset, they go on strike, they have riots and we just send emails in capital letters.
Jack Cafferty: In fairness, you know what they did when they got upset? The elected an African American president.

I have often blogged about how the real power lies with the grassroots, and that it’s up to the masses to make the changes that have made history. There is no reason why so many people who think the current system is unjust shouldn’t have their views respected. It actually doesn’t make any sense; a little like the irrationality of celebrities being role models instead of role models being celebrities, powerful people have become heroes rather than every day heroes having power. The real heroes, those who work steadfastly, day after day, making the world a better place, are considered to be nobodies.

It makes me wonder how we got ourselves into this state of affairs. Think about it: who are considered to be the ‘nobodies’ of today? You and I are. We aren’t celebrities, we aren’t criminals, we aren’t socialites, we aren’t big time politicians, we aren’t big bankers, we aren’t big economists – we are the day to day workers, making the world go around. And although the entire system rests on us doing that work to the best of our ability, we are considered as nobodies.

It doesn’t make sense, and this in itself should make us realize that we aren’t the ‘nobodies’. They are. And it is up to us to create a Revolution which will change the course of history.

The AIG bailout debacle: Careful not to let the pitchfork wielding crowds out

It was quite amusing, watch The Colbert Report dated March 16th where Colbert encouraged his audience to join him in creating a huge, angry, pitchfork wielding crowd and go march on AIG (watch the clip here). And while most of us do feel that anger at what happened, we are far too civilized to actually do that.

Or are we? Discussion boards are teeming with angry threats, and I have received a couple of emails about some readers’ anger over what happened with AIG. While the anger is understandable, perhaps we aren’t channeling it in the right way.

One example of a positive channeling of this anger is – can you guess who I am going to talk about? Yes, about Barack Obama. But let’s face it – he’s the President of the United States, ergo he has some power to do what needs to be done. But what can we, little people of the world, do when all the power we have is that over our younger siblings and/or our children – and even that power is often challenged?

There needs to be a major restructuring of the way we do things, not only at the top (which good old President Barack Obama seems to be taking care of), but also at the bottom. We cannot continue to feed into a system made to make us consume excessively and irresponsibly.

My advice? Stop shopping too much, start shopping wisely and start contributing your time, money and attention to those around you who need it, from your neighbor’s child with ADHD who needs to be tutored with patience to the poor people across the city who can barely make ends meet. Let’s be the change!

There are probably a lot of other things we can do, and I’m open to trying many of them – but the one thing we can’t do is let this anger blind us or, worse, make us so things we are going to later regret.

From IHT: Whipping A.I.G. feels good, but it hurts us all

By Joe Nocera (published on March 21st 2009)

Can we all just calm down a little?

Yes, the $165 million in bonuses handed out to executives in the financial products division of American International Group was infuriating. Truly, it was. As many others have noted, this is the same unit whose shenanigans came perilously close to bringing the world’s financial system to its knees. When the Federal Reserve chairman, Ben Bernanke, said recently that A.I.G.’s “irresponsible bets” had made him “more angry” than anything else about the financial crisis, he could have been speaking for most Americans.

But death threats? “All the executives and their families should be executed with piano wire — my greatest hope,” wrote one person in an e-mail message to the company. Another suggested publishing a list of the “Yankee” bankers “so some good old southern boys can take care of them.” (…)

How does outing these executives fix skewed compensation incentives, which have created that unjustified sense of entitlement that pervades Wall Street? No, it’s mostly about using subpoena power to satisfy the public’s thirst for blood. (…)

Then there was that awful congressional hearing on Wednesday, in which A.I.G.’s newly installed chief executive, Edward Liddy, was forced to listen to one outraged member of Congress after another rail about bonuses — and obsess about when Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner learned about them — while ignoring far more troubling problems surrounding the A.I.G. rescue.

Oh, and let’s not forget the bill that was passed on Thursday by the House of Representatives. It would tax at a 90 percent rate bonus payments made to anyone who earned over $250,000 at any financial institution receiving significant bailout funds. Should it become law, it will affect tens of thousands of employees who had absolutely nothing to do with creating the crisis, and who are trying to help fix their companies.

Meanwhile, the real culprits — like Joseph J. Cassano, the former head of A.I.G.’s financial products division— are counting their money in “retirement.” Nobody on Capitol Hill seems much interested in getting that money back. (And the bill does nothing about bonuses that were paid before 2009, meaning that most of those egregious Merrill Lynch bonuses, paid at the end of last year, will not be touched.)

By week’s end, I was more depressed about the financial crisis than I’ve been since last September. Back then, the issue was the disintegration of the financial system, as the Lehman bankruptcy set off a terrible chain reaction. Now I’m worried that the political response is making the crisis worse. The Obama administration appears to have lost its grip on Congress, while the Treasury Department always seems caught off guard by bad news. (…)

How is the political reaction to the crisis making it worse? Let us count the ways.

IT IS DESTROYING VALUE During his testimony on Wednesday, Mr. Liddy pointed out that much of the money the government turned over to A.I.G. was a loan, not a gift. The company’s goal, he kept saying, was to pay that money back. But how? Mr. Liddy’s plan is to sell off the healthy insurance units — or, failing that, give them to the government to sell when they can muster a good price.

In other words, it is in the taxpayers’ best interest to position A.I.G. as a company with many profitable units, worth potentially billions, and one bad unit that needs to be unwound. Which, by the way, is the truth. But as Mr. Ely puts it, “the indiscriminate pounding that A.I.G. is taking is destroying the value of the company.” Potential buyers are wary. Customers are going elsewhere. Employees are looking to leave. Treating all of A.I.G. like Public Enemy No. 1 is a pretty dumb way for a majority shareholder to act when he hopes to sell the company for top dollar.

Read the rest of the article here.

Barack Obama’s Naw Ruz video message to Iran

President Barack Obama has sent a video message to Iran and its people on Naw Ruz, the Persian New Year that falls on the spring equinox. Interestingly enough, this is at the same time a Zoroastrian religious tradition that became part of the Iranian (non-religious) culture, as well as a Baha’i religious tradition.

What a great video, what great timing, and what a lovely effort to try to speak Persian at the very end of the video (the accent wasn’t too bad either). What an amazing thing to for an American president to do, to reach out to a country who doesn’t like the United States (to put it mildly). ‘Be the change’ seems to be more than a motto for this administration, and this administration seems intent on proving it time and time again.

Perhaps the best consequence of this video won’t necessarily be the response of the Iranian government, but rather that of both the Iranian and the American people: to be piqued with curiosity enough that they will open up to what the other country really is like, rather than to believe in all the misconceptions that have been flying around both countries. And perhaps this will lead both governments to open up even more to each other. How great would that be!

Sterwart vs Cramer: In Cramer we might be able to trust?

For all its worth, the Stewart-Cramer showdown might have served one purpose: to give birth to a man not only brilliant in his analysis of the economy, but who has learned the hard lesson of humility (and no, I did not mean humiliation). Because while my admiration for Jon Sterwart increased exponentially for being so politely harsh (when was the last time you saw such a polite stripping down?) I have to admit that I felt sorry for Cramer, and I hope that he channels his genius into helping create the change needed in our society.

Then he could become poster-boy for Barack Obama’s ‘Be the Change’ motto. Who knows?

Until then, you can watch the interview here.

And for those of you who would rather read about it here is a little something from CNN. I found CNN’s take very interesting, although I wouldn’t agree with the way the article describes some of the exchange between Cramer and Stewart. I couldn’t help but post some personal comments on the article below.

By most accounts, the showdown was pretty brutal.

Many watching Thursday night’s “Daily Show” on Comedy Central felt that comedian-turned-media-critic Jon Stewart held bombastic financial guru and CNBC “Mad Money” host Jim Cramer’s feet to the fire.

And Cramer flinched.

Stewart, known for his zany, satirical take on the news, was serious as he took Cramer’s network to task for what Stewart viewed as their “cheerleading” of corporations at the heart of the nation’s current economic crisis.

And despite the title of his financial show, Cramer came off as less mad and more apologetic. (Sahar’s note: And Cramer should be applauded, first for appearing on the show knowing Stewart had him, second for not defending himself too much knowing that he made big mistakes, and third for apologizing. That’s pretty big.)

If it was a prize fight, they would have stopped it,” said Howard Kurtz, the “Washington Post” media critic and host of CNN’s “Reliable Sources.” “I was stunned that Jim Cramer kind of did a rope-a-dope strategy and didn’t really defend himself against Jon Stewart’s assault.”

Kurtz is very familiar with the style of both men.

He has appeared on “The Daily Show” and is the author of “The Fortune Tellers: Inside Wall Street’s Game of Money, Media and Manipulation,” in which Cramer is featured.

Kurtz said Stewart “made clear at the outset that he wasn’t going for laughs” and displayed very much the same passion for holding the media accountable as he did when he appeared on, and denounced, CNN’s “Crossfire.” (Sahar’s note: Too bad people – myself included – are too busy to see these things, up to a certain point, for themselves, especially in the age of blogging)

“When I went on [Stewart's] show last year, he was so wound up in ripping the media that he went on for another 10 minutes, knowing full well that we were out of time,” Kurtz said. “Stewart, as funny as he can be, is a very trenchant media critic who cares passionately about this stuff, and we saw that Thursday night.”

iReporter David Seaman of New York said he was surprised at the vigor with which Stewart “attacked Cramer’s credibility.”

The public wants answers as to how the country got into such financial distress, and viewers really want someone to answer for the mess, Seaman said. (Sahar’s note: And it’s a little unfortunate that Jim Cramer had to take the fall. After all, he didn’t create the mess – he helped perpetuate it.)

“People want to see a lot of the financial gurus on a shish kabob, being skewered,” Seaman said. “It’s really important to hold people accountable, and as we saw last night, Jon Stewart is a bit of a wild card, so if you aren’t living up to expectations, he may call you out.”

David Brancaccio, host and senior editor of “Now on PBS,” commended Cramer for his bravery in going on the show, though he said he was surprised that the brilliant founder of TheStreet.com seemed ill-prepared for Stewart’s very thoughtful questioning.

Brancaccio, the former host of American Public Media’s “Marketplace” radio program, echoed the comments of many in that he found the exchange visibly uncomfortable for the usually showman-like Cramer.

“You have the comedian as journalist, and you have the financial journalist as clown, in that on his show, Cramer’s goofing around and plays the clown,” Brancaccio said. “What a role reversal.”

Read the rest of the article here.

To strike or not to strike: justice and equity in a messed up world

Here is a quote that found its way to my inbox. I found it all the more interesting in the context of the mounting anger of the dwindling number of employees.

Strikes are due to two causes. One is the extreme sharpness and rapacity of the capitalists and manufacturers; the other, the excesses, the avidity and ill-will of the workmen and artisans. It is therefore necessary to remedy these two causes.

But the principal cause of these difficulties lies in the laws of the present civilization; for they lead to a small number of individuals accumulating incomparable fortunes, beyond their needs, whilst the greater number remains destitute, stripped and in the greatest misery. This is contrary to justice, to humanity, to equity; it is the height of iniquity, the opposite to what causes divine satisfaction.

This contrast is peculiar to the world of man: with other creatures, that is to say with nearly all animals, there is a kind of justice and equality. Thus in a shepherd’s flock of sheep, in a troop of deer in the country, among the birds of the prairie, of the plain, of the hill or of the orchard, almost every animal receives a just share based on equality. With them such a difference in the means of existence is not to be found: so they live in the most complete peace and joy.

It is quite otherwise with the human species, which persists in the greatest error, and in absolute iniquity. Consider an individual who has amassed treasures by colonizing a country for his profit: he has obtained an incomparable fortune, and has secured profits and incomes which flow like a river, whilst a hundred thousand unfortunate people, weak and powerless, are in need of a mouthful of bread. There is neither equality nor brotherhood. So you see that general peace and joy are destroyed, the welfare of humanity is partially annihilated, and that collective life is fruitless. Indeed, fortune, honors, commerce, industry are in the hands of some industrials, whilst other people are submitted to quite a series of difficulties and to limitless troubles: they have neither advantages nor profits, nor comforts, nor peace.

Then rules and laws should be established to regulate the excessive fortunes of certain private individuals, and limit the misery of millions of the poor masses; thus a certain moderation would be obtained. However, absolute equality is just as impossible, for absolute equality in fortunes, honors, commerce, agriculture, industry, would end in a want of comfort, in discouragement, in disorganization of the means of existence, and in universal disappointment: the order of the community would be quite destroyed. Thus, there is a great wisdom in the fact that equality is not imposed by law: it is, therefore, preferable for moderation to do its work. The main point is, by means of laws and regulations to hinder the constitution of the excessive fortunes of certain individuals, and to protect the essential needs of the masses.

‘Abdu’l-Baha, in Baha’i World Faith, pp. 280-281