Scout at First Draft has
a great post up titled,
Army Corps of Engineers Report: New Orleans Pumps still have mechanical flaws; also found contract improprieties check it out and also check out Matt McBride's, excellent blog "
Fix the Pumps" for his engineering rigor (or any of my buddies in the New Orleans blogger community in my blog roll at the right. I dig them all, with special props to
Gentilly Girl,
Dangerblond and
Humid City v. 2.3.
There is a view formulated by right-wing think tanks that if only government would get off their damn backs with demands for safety that everything would be better. That the "free market" will fix it all. That there are too many damn rules that are just a burden already.
But here's the thing.
Rules and regulation are GREAT for businesses. Businesses NEED a working government. They NEED a working legal system. Competent government oversight is GOOD for the health of business. Just like a working media are good for government and business. The corporations will never admit this because, well then they would have to acknowledge all the good things they get out of rules, regulations, laws and a working government infrastructure.
I've heard some corporate executives say, "All I need is an unfair advantage."
Of COURSE they won't talk about the tremendous benefit they get from worker safety rules or government oversight, or contract regulations. Instead they find the excesses to make a point.
"Look how ridiculous this rule is! See how inefficient government is? What stupid requirements they demand!" Yes, there are ridiculous excesses, but there often is a reason for each and every one of the rules and regulations. Some company (or multiple companies) got busted badly and people got sick, died or will die because of a serious transgression. Or the corporation did life -changing economic harm to millions of people.
And the people cry out for justice. "Where was the government at? How could the businesses get away with this? What kind of greedy monsters want to hide and cover-up information about poison in food?"
So then people become reluctant activists. I explain to them that they are working against a mind set and structure that has been developed and nurtured for decades. This mind set has been fabulously successful and its practitioners are highly-skilled and well paid.
These companies won't admit a failure even when their noses are rubbed in it, or if they do, it will have to be pro-forma admission of guilt which is Latin for "I don't really want to say this, but I will because I have to and secretly I'm glad I have to." (High school Latin scholars feel free to jump in here and comment.)
Corporations That act Like Children People who study childhood development tell us that children need structure. Children have to learn what things will hurt them ("Hot! Don't touch! Don't play with matches! Careful! You'll poke your sister's eye out with that stick!")
Children will resist the warnings until they achieve awareness that the rules and warnings are for THEM and not some other children out there who are really bad. The rules they break are often designed to protect themselves and others. ("Don't eat that! It's poison! Don't feed that to your sister, it will kill her!")
I don't expect to hear children say (until years later) "Thank you Mother for not letting me eat that poison. Thank you Father for insisting I always wear protective goggles when woodworking." They don't have that kind of insight. But they should be grateful that someone insisted they do the right thing.
I clearly remember walking with a friend with toddlers in tow through the Air and Space museum in Washington D.C.. It was like the kids had no idea that gravity worked! They were ready to fling themselves off of high places or slip through gaps in the bars of railings overlooking the airplanes and space capsules. It was exhausting keeping an eye on them because they were constantly trying to evade our watchful eyes. Their quest to have fun looked to me like a constant attempt to kill themselves.
I mention all this because whenever there are calls for any regulation the cries of "Nanny state!" start. Any attempt at sensible guidelines or regulation are loudly shouted down under the guise of "there is too much regulation already!" They are then quietly shouted down with donations in the halls of congress. When we looked at something like the pet food industry we see that regulation to them doesn't have the same meaning as it does to us. But they know that throwing around the words "highly regulated" will stem the tide of criticism and bring out the defenders of all things "free" market and anti-oversight with real regulation.
Like a child they would never come forward and say, "PLEASE regulate me. I need the discipline!" Instead they will say, "I don't want any stupid rules. I'm going to pick up my toys and go to somewhere were their aren't rules." And because there are plenty of people and countries to choose from with cheap labor they will pick the ones that lets them follow the least amount of rules.
And then when some of them grow up (usually after something bad happens) they realize that those pesky rules were there for a purpose.
They can see that a working infrastructure legal system, food safety, human safety or financial guidelines were actually good for them. But now they are addicted to the rhetoric, stuck in the groove of decades. Fighting the previous battle and imaginary excesses and some rare real exceptions.
I use the
"business as child" metaphor because if I didn't, it would be too hard to contemplate.
Imagine people in business or supporting businesses who actively work to make it possible for MORE horrible acts to happen? I can't imagine people sit around and decide to cover up or support poison in food. People who, instead of addressing the problem, argue that the problem doesn't exist or question the credibility of the critic. What kind of people would do that?
Can you imagine someone calculating that X number of people or pets might die because of this, then asking "What do we had to do so that we can get away with it?" I just don't think that most humans would say, "Who do we have to hire to cover this it up, to make it go away and shut up the critics?" Normal people don't think that way.
If these people exist, surely they must not be lionized. Surely people whose job it is to draw focus from the problem, aren't aware of what they are really doing. I think that those people, if they are involved, will make weak arguments in a desperate hope that that they will be seen as a sham. I would think that these people would quietly do the right thing to maintain their personal moral high ground. But I do understand the power and pressure of the child and their self-centered world view. The Child will scream "I hate you!" to the parent who tells them, "No! You can't feed your sister that. It will make her sick!"
If there
are people at the highest levels making this all possible, how would you react to them? Should they be praised? Excused? Rewarded? Vilified? How should they be treated by other humans? And what about the people who assist them knowingly? What role do that play? What culpability do people with full awareness have? People who know something is wrong and do it anyway? But I'm just a brain in a box. I live in the internet. I don't get out much, so I don't know the ways of the world.
When time in measured in nano-seconds, I wonder how much time should be given to people to act in a manner that is befitting of the label, human being?
Labels: corporate guidelines, FDA, flood control, HumidCity, pumps investigation, recall, spocko, tainted pet food, USDA, We Are NOT Okay
