Is the E.U. System Enabling Russian Expansionism?

The visuals alone in the closing news conference of the EU-US “summit” held in Brussels, which President Barroso denoted as “the capital of Europe,” on March 26, 2014, must have struck Europeans and Americans alike as novel, if not rather bizarre; we are not yet accustomed to seeing the EU and US presidents on the same stage, for we are mired in the paradigm of another epoch. The failure to "catch up" may tacitly enable the expansion of another empire-level federation.

The full essay is at "E.U. Federalism Enabling Russian Expansionism"

Google Finds an Obstacle in the E.U.: A Lesson for Americans?

The European Court of Justice, the E.U. Supreme Court, ruled on May 13, 2014 that Google must defer to the right of users to have links about themselves deleted. Google’s management had sought to obviate any obligation to act on such requests. The New York Times points out that the decision indicates “that such companies must operate in a fundamentally different way than they do in the United States.”[1] The ring of fundamentality has implications for the international strategies of internet companies and affords us a better look at how business plays out in society differently in different societies.

From: "Google in the E.U. and U.S."

Sinek's Ideological Leadership of Sacrifice: At What Cost?

In the world of journalistic and popular writers who double as motivational speakers, leadership is the proverbial rainbow into which practically any ideal can be subsumed. Unfortunately, the enterprise can be likened to a hot-air balloon that has lost its moorings. That is to say, the link between the aspirations and what they can actually deliver typically received little if any real attention, not to mention respect. In some cases, the promises of leadership motivational-speakers, or “coaches,” run up against, or ignoring outright, human nature itself. Ironically, as such leadership preachments are typically (and quite conveniently) oriented to upper-echelon corporate managers, or executives, Communism suffers from the same flaw: contravening human nature. Yet the leadership bubble continues upward, quite unabated by reality.

From: "Leadership as a Responsibility to Sacrifice"

Wealth Triumphs at the Kentucky Derby

Imagine running a race, and winning it only to watch the metal being given to your sponsor. “To Coke, our victor.” In enabling a runner, horse, or jockey to train, a sponsor is not the winner (for otherwise the sponsor would be enabling itself). While it is understandable that wealth is highly esteemed in the business sector, the imposing of this “top dog” in society itself distorts non-business activities into the prism of commerce. In the context of managerial capitalism, particularly where managers style themselves as “coaches,” it is no accident that coaches and trainers in sports come to be treated  as ends rather than means—as the winners rather than as facilitators on the sideline. It is important to remember that Art Sherman was not on the horse that won the Derby in 2014.  

The essay is at WR - Business & Society: "Who Won the Kentucky Derby?"

Putin on Ukraine's National Sovereignty

On February 28, 2014, Ukraine’s UN Ambassador Yurly Sergeyev informed the Security Council that Russia had invaded the Crimean Peninsula, a semi-autonomous region of the sovereign state. Heretofore, in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons, Russia had agreed in a treaty to respect the territorial borders of the Soviet Union’s former republic. After briefly discussing whether Putin’s land-grab should have come as a surprise to the world, I take a critical look at the Russian president’s rationale for invasion. I argue that political realism (i.e., strategic interests of particular states being the signature feature of international relations) undergirds Putin’s geo-political view. This foundation is problematic as evinced by Putin’s inconsistencies on national sovereignty.

From: "Russia’s Putin on National Sovereignty: Ukraine v. Syria"

Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stevens Testifies on Campaign Finance Reform

In his testimony before a U.S. Senate Committee in 2014, former U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens addressed the need for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution giving Congress and the States the power to restrict political campaign contributions. After listing leveling the playing field such that rival candidates have equal opportunity to persuade, freeing up elected officials from having to spend so much time raising campaign funds, and distinguishing constituents from non-voters (including unions, corporations, and people of other electoral jurisdictions in the U.S.), he stated his position in particularly clear terms. “Money is not speech,” he declared. “Speech is only one of the activities that are financed by campaign contributions and expenditures. Those financial activities should not receive precisely the same constitutional protection as speech itself.”  In short, even money given directly to a political campaign does not reduce to political speech. Although Citizens United (2010) and McCutcheon (2014) were being much cited at the time as baleful cases sure to transform the American democracy into a plutocracy, or rule by wealth-interests, Stevens went back to a 1976 case as the reason why a constitutional amendment rather a mere statute would be needed to place limitations on monetary contributions to political campaigns. In denying Congress the power to impose limits on campaign contributions, the Court in Buckley v. Valeo issued the infamous equivalence between money and speech. To Stevens, money is speech is the fundamental error promulgated by the Court in Buckley that has led successive majority opinions to eviscerate campaign finance limitations enacted by Congress. I submit that the ex-jurist could have drawn on the Buckley decision for support, thus undermining the resulting legal doctrine as a legal precedent for the Court. 

The entire essay is at "John Paul Stevens: Money Is Not Speech"

Clippers Owner Faces Mob-Rule?

As the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court were looking at two cases involving cellphone privacy from the standpoint of police access, NBC Commissioner Adam Silver announced that he had banned Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling from attending any NBA team practice or game for life and was being fined $2.5 million. Interestingly, given the tenor of the public discourse, the Clippers’ owner had not made a public pronouncement regarding his negative view of black people; rather, a tabloid had taped and broadcast a private cellphone conversation. That is to say, Sterling would have to pay a multi-million dollar fine for what he had said in a private conversation with his girlfriend. I contend there is reason to pause at this news, lest such public pressure establish the precedent wherein the passions of the mob is effectively given such reign as to render property ownership and the rule of law as so contingent that might makes right. 

The essay is at WR - Government & Markets: “NBA Team-Owner Faces Wrath of the Mob For Racist Conversation”

Marnie

Some movies are remembered for their narrative; other films attract an audience out of sheer star-power. Generally speaking, both story and charisma can be of value to a film. The value of a charismatic actor playing a character of substance can be realized by watching the performance dubbed with the voice of another actor. Watching the film Forgiven once dubbed in French, I popped out the DVD even before the end of the first act because the voices of Gene Hackman, Clint Eastwood, and Morgan Freeman were gone. In the case of Marnie (1964), as well as the James Bond franchise, the flims would lose out without Sean Connery’s voice. Even so, a film that distorts or stretches a narrative to attract (and rely on) an actor’s charisma is also suboptimal. I contend that this excess compromises Marnie.

The essay is at WR-Film: "Marnie"

On Putin's Selective Recognition of National Sovereignty: Political Realism Undone?

On February 28, 2014, Ukraine’s UN Ambassador Yurly Sergeyev informed the Security Council that Russia had invaded the Crimean Peninsula, a semi-autonomous region of the sovereign state. Heretofore, in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons, Russia had agreed in a treaty to respect the territorial borders of the Soviet Union’s former republic. After briefly discussing whether Putin’s land-grab should have come as a surprise to the world, I take a critical look at the Russian president’s rationale for invasion. I argue that political realism (i.e., strategic interests of particular states being the signature feature of international relations) undergirds Putin’s geo-political view. This foundation is problematic as evinced by Putin’s inconsistencies on national sovereignty.

The essay is at WR-International Relations: "Russia’s Putin on National Sovereignty"

Corporate Social Responsibility in the Mega-Churches: A Fusion of Business and Christianity?

The ends–justifying-the-means rationale is a tricky business, justifying historically a myriad of offensive practices including torture. On the other hand, “good use” has been deemed a legitimate rationale for acquiring wealth under Christian auspices—the obstacle of the proverbial camel squeezing through the eye of the needle being assuaged by good intentions. Generally speaking, the “right use” rationale gained currency through the centuries of Christianity, leading to the Prosperity Gospel , which maintains that right belief rather than right use is all a believer needs to justify  acquiring and amassing wealth without being thereby excluded from the Kingdom of God. That Gospel, by the way, comes out of the Hebrew Bible, or “Old Testament.”  In this essay, I analyze the “good use” rationale in the context of incorporating businesses inside a church—a trend well-underway in the evangelical  Christian mega-churches as of 2014. Can the rationale survive the baleful implications of the proverbial camel Biblical passage? Further, what of Jesus’s over-turning of the sellers’s tables in the Temple?

The essay is at WR-Religion: "Right Use” of a Business in Church: Incorporating Corporate Social Responsibility"

Economic Sanctions: Weapon of Choice to Counter Russian Expansionism

A week and a half after government representatives from Russia, the E.U., the U.S., and Ukraine agreed to deescalate the political instability in eastern Ukraine, the U.S. Government imposed additional “targeted sanctions on a number of Russian individuals and companies” after concluding that the Russian government had not ceased from fomenting violence in eastern Ukraine.[1] With the official numbers on capital flight from Russia at $50 billion a month for the first three months of 2014, this announcement on April 28^th is oriented to exploiting a Russian vulnerability. Moreover, the statement signals a step-wise, “surgical” approach premised on the value of money—a symbol of value. In relative terms, a broad military response looks almost primitive, if not (hopefully) antiquated.

The essay is at WR-International Relations: "High Finance Answering Putin’s Imperial Ambitions: A New Age?"

Anti-Semitism and the Russian Invasion of Ukraine

At a joint EU-US news-conference on 26 March 2014, Presidents Barroso, Van Rompuy, and Obama discussed the problematic Russian invasion of the Crimea province of Ukraine.  The “chairman” of the European Council and the “chief executive” of the European Commission both responded to concerns that the European Union had not stood up to its business interests in order to enact economic sanctions capable of putting Putin back in his pen. Even though the two EU presidents sought to "puff up" the force latent in the sanctions already in place, Barroso insightfully made the more significant point that aggressively sending tanks across a border was no longer tolerable. Perhaps from “lessons learned” from Hitler’s exploits in the twentieth century, global challenges such as global warming (and, relatedly, the species’ over-population), and an internet-enabled closer world in the twenty-first century, a paradigm-shift in international relations may harken some sorely needed progress in international relations (i.e., political development)  in the new millennium. The key would be a stark refusal to tolerate a practice that had been tacitly accommodated, even in opposition, just decades earlier. 

The essay is at WR-International Relations: "New Rules: Invasions and Anti-Semitism in the Twenty-First Century"

Aereo v Broadcast TV Networks

Internet start-ups can be said to profit, at least potentially sometime in the future, by leveraging the commons, or public space, even enlarging it in the process. Companies founded on the scarcity paradigm of privateness and even public policy based on a de facto privatized tenet have accordingly gone on the defensive. Although Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions would suggest that the old guard must die off before the new paradigm can come into its own, the internet revolution has shown a remarkable yet subtle persistence in “seeping through the cracks” into the “light of day.” 

The essay is at WR-Government & Markets: "The Internet Eclipsing Television Networks: Toto, We’re not in Kansas Anymore"

New Rules for a New Millennium: Russian Invaders Beware

At a joint EU-US news-conference on 26 March 2014, Presidents Barroso, Van Rompuy, and Obama discussed the problematic Russian invasion of the Crimea province of Ukraine.  The “chairman” of the European Council and the “chief executive” of the European Commission both responded to concerns that the European Union had not stood up to its business interests in order to enact economic sanctions capable of putting Putin back in his pen. Even though the two EU presidents sought to "puff up" the force latent in the sanctions already in place, Barroso insightfully made the more significant point that invading parties just aren't done in the new century. In this essay, my task is to sideline the debate over whether the EU had not stood up to its domestic commercial interests in favor of Barroso's much more significant point concerning a paradigm shift whose time of recognition has come in the new millennium.

(The remainder of this essay is now at the International Relations section of The Worden Report)

Social Media Marketing: The Social Element as an End in Itself

In the religious domain, some people struggle with the inherent incongruity of acting selflessly while believing that the righteous are rewarded in heaven. Resolving this oxymoron in practical as well as theoretical terms may come down to “one hand not knowing what the other hand is doing.” Whether innate or a “learned skill,” disentangling a practice from any hope of reward can be applied to social media marketing. This application is easier said than done, especially in a culture of greed saturated with opportunism at every opportunity as a strong norm and custom. Indeed, the underlying question may be whether a “strong personality” once well-engrained is able, not to mention willing, to “park itself out back” if even for a much-needed break.

Gary Vaynerchuk, the author of several books on social media marketing, preaches a two-step approach, which can be characterized as the marketer becoming a native in whichever (social media) platforms he or she is in and then consummating the (ultimately) desired transaction. Ideally, the selling fuses with becoming a native (or recognized as one), so the two phases are “phased” into one.

Crucially, being able to come across as a native is not the same as “going native.” Whether in business or government, putting up a front in order to be perceived by the masses as one of them is not the same as being one of them. Even though Vaynerchuk emphasizes the need to respect the nuances of a given social media platform (e.g., values and mannerisms), he may be interpreted by some readers as maintaining that presenting the appearance of respect is sufficient to “become” a native, at least for marketing purposes. In other words, a marketer need not “go native”; going through the motions is sufficient as long as the other participants believe that the entrant is satisfying their social or informational objectives.  

Unfortunately, learning how to come across as a native in sync with a platform’s distinctive “cultural” mores and norms may be too short-sighted not only in terms of “going native,” but also in achieving marketing objectives. In fact, the approach itself may be too self-serving—too close to those objectives—to render the marketer as a native. Positing a distance between engaging the social element and being oriented to making the sale, Vaynerchuk advises that in contributing to the social or informational dialogue at the outset, “you’re not selling anything. You’re not asking your consumer for a commitment. You’re just sharing a moment together.”[1] The experience shared is essentially an end in itself, eclipsing any further motive, as in to sell a product or service.

It may seem rather strange to find a marketer oriented to exploiting any opportunity “just sharing a moment together” with electronic strangers as an end in itself; serial opportunists in an enabling cultural context are used to treating other rational beings as mere means at any opportunity, rather than as ends in themselves (i.e., violating Kant’s Kingdom of Ends version of his Categorical Imperative). Vaynerchuk may undercut his own depiction of the shared experience as sufficient unto itself by reminding his readers that the “emotional connection” they “build through [participating in social or informational dialogue without selling but to “become” a native] pays off [when they] decide to throw the right hook [i.e., make the sale’s pitch and consummate a transaction].”[2] With such a payoff in the offing, I doubt that virtually any marketer oriented to “maximizing” any opportunity to tout, brag, or hard-sell would just share an emotional connection at a moment without being motivated by, or at least mindful of, the hidden agenda.

A "stakeholder model" approach to social-media marketing. This framework is inherently self-centric, whereas a web-like structure would be more in line with "shared experiences." Both frameworks are distinct, and yet can be managed, or related, such that neither encroaches on the other unduly.

(Image Source: irisemedia.com)

As difficult as it may be for a marketing personality to simply share a moment with another human being—especially a stranger narrowly glimpsed through electronic means—Vaynerchuk rightly situates the feat as a requirement for “going native,” and thus, ironically, for being able to ultimately make the sale. In the context of authentic social and informational reciprocity in a given social-media platform, a wax figure easily stands out. Even so, all too many marketers come across as stiff, or contrived, in social media as if self-centeredness and lying advances rather than detracts from sales. Hence, I suspect that a rather intractable marketing personality and a related and thus enabling culture, such as that of American business, stands in the way of business being able to fully integrate social-media marketing.[3] 

Similar to why it is difficult to fall asleep without taking a break from trying to do so, marketers have trouble not letting their marketing hand know what their other hand is doing. At the very least, managers overseeing marketing would need to permit and even encourage the marketer(s) tasked with social-media marketing to spend time online without worrying about having to sell anything (even oneself). In hiring such marketers, managers ought to highlight rather than sideline those applicants who enjoy being on a social media platform.

---

[1] Gary Vaynerchuk, Jab, Jab, Jab, Right Hook (New York: Harper, 2013), p. 22.

[2] Ibid, p. 23.

[3] The fixation on using any opportunity to sell one’s wares is exemplified in CNBC’s Jim Cramer’s choice of response as another host mentioned on March 14, 2014  that Jim had worked that weekend at his restaurant. Rather than share the moment by regaling his colleagues and the viewers with a tale of something enjoyable from his weekend at his restaurant, he remarked as if by script that he had worked that weekend because “we were trying out a new chicken sandwich” and a new drink. The sheer contrivance belied any semblance of authentic passion, as might be realized in relishing simply experiencing being in his restaurant (e.g., the atmosphere) and later telling people about it instead of selling as if it were an end in itself. Underneath the obsession with getting as much as possible from any opportunity is greed, a motive and value that knows no limitation. Ultimately, it is a well-worn grove that keeps marketers from “going native” and thus being able to fully inhabit social media.