Results tagged “controversy” from Uncivil Society
Jeremiah's Vanishing New York has the story of the recent relocation of venerable Greenwich Village institution Ansonia Pharmacy, whose store window featured "a revolving display of mostly local art known as the Ansonia Pharmacy Windows."
The reason for the move was explained by this not-so-cryptic quote from Aristotle: "Everything that moves is moved by another." The reason, no doubt, is the substantial escalation of rent at the original location, a market phenomenon that many believe is causing Manhattan to lose its core identity. One proposal to stop things like this from happening is the adoption of commercial rent control for small businesses. Although Aristotle notes that politics is inherently an ethical enterprise, whether rent control is the ethical solution has been the subject of considerable debate.
Kissing a piece of paper for charity seems to have replaced the traditional kissing booth, which would today be seen less as a fun fundraiser than a hub for spreading the flu.
If the above vintage ad's strategy of prescribing carb-filled crackers to lose weight seems goofily retro (not to mention sexist), check out this new research on carbs as the dietary key to personal happiness.
Commenter Kate Collins offers this important update on my earlier post questioning the legitimacy of the alleged Michael Jackson charity. The CBS article linked within basically follows up the info in my post (um, nice "exclusive," CBS--and hi!*) with the estate's assertion that there is indeed no connection between the Heal the World Foundation and the Michael Jackson estate.
It's an issue because the HTWF has reportedly asked the court for permission to use the Michael Jackson trademark to sell branded merchandise.
*Kids, if you're going to mine a blog post for its research & legal analysis, at least be smart enough not to paraphrase the title.
My thoughts on the new encyclical here. An excerpt:
In a nutshell, when Caritas in Veritate--Love in Truth--takes aim at social systems that fetishize technology and do not respect the whole human person, it's targeting all forms of reductionistic secularism. Yes, banks and hedge funds are part of it, but so too are environmentalists and other social entrepreneurs who do not grasp that respect for the "human ecology" is the essential predicate for respecting the "environmental ecology." And in referring to respect for human life, the encyclical makes explicit reference to Humanae Vitae, the papal encyclical best known for essentially prohibiting artificial methods of birth control.
That's the rhetoric that gives away the game. The encyclical's repeated references to the need for a social system built on truth, respect for life, and the inclusion of the Church in its deliberations are squarely aimed at remaking social reform in the image of Church social ethics--most importantly, the eradication of the so-called "culture of death" exemplified by contraception, abortion, in vitro fertilization and what the encyclical considers to be the technocratic nightmare of bioethics.
The call for a central institutional authority to manage the economy--the vaunted United Nations with teeth--must be understood in context. According to the encyclical, such an authority would rise above "inhuman humanism" only if it incorporated the Church's voice in its institutional pronouncements. The strategy, in other words, is to circumvent the liberalizing forces of secular democracies by creating a central regulatory power where the Church could concentrate its influence to shut down what it believes to be unethical commerce and international development, such as sexually explicit or religiously offensive media, the distribution of condoms, grant aid for abortions and stem cell research.
Michael Jackson's Heal the World Foundation did a considerable amount of good in its heyday in the mid-1990s, but it suspended operations in 2002 after failing to file several years worth of required annual reports with the state of California. The charity's New York offshoot, Heal the Kids, also faced a similar crisis in 2003, after which time it seems to have disappeared.
Last year brought news that that Jackson had not really stopped supporting his charity. Instead, the Heal the World Foundation had been reorganized. According to HTWF's website,
People are now remembering his music legacy, but behind the scenes, unknown to all but a small handful of people, during these last 7 years he authorized that tens of thousands be spent on preserving his charity organization Heal the World Foundation (HTWF).
Jackson started HTWF in 1992 and was designed to leverage his name, adding to the many millions Michael Jackson had personally given to charity. With Michael Jackson not happy at turning 50 years old, he stepped up his efforts for a multifaceted comeback.
Following these final performances, it was believed that Mr. Jackson would live a long and full life, devoted to HTWF and serving his God and his fellow man, with his fans leading the way.
Instead, the Heal the World Foundation announced that it would host a memorial benefit at a property bordering Jackson's Neverland Ranch--an event that ended up being canceled when local authorities objected that the event lacked the requisite permits.
I don't want to get in the way of a good thing, and I certainly wish the organizers well with whatever good deeds they have planned for the future. However, the more I go over my files on this Foundation, the more I've begun to wonder whether the relaunched charity was connected to Jackson in any way besides the name.
That the memorial PR came from an event management company with no evident coordination with the Jackson estate raised a red flag for me, but that's not the only odd thing. There's also the array of Michael Jackson domain names associated with the Foundation's president, Melissa Johnson, and the charity itself. For example, while Michael has been known to inspire quasi-religious devotion among his fans, would he have authorized the use of the domain name prophetmichael.com?
Somewhat more troubling, the Foundation is named in the WHOIS listing for http://mjplay.com, but the link itself takes you to Johnson's personal home health care service. Even more curiously, the home health service lists HTWF as a partner in providing elder care assistance--with no mention of Jackson. I was willing to view the Jackson-related domain names as a bit of strategic cybersquatting, but commingling charitable enterprise with a manager's own commercial private business is not something a charity should do.
Then there's this intriguing Craiglist post from mid-June:
The nature of the problem isn't at all clear--another charity named "Heal the World" filed a "Heal the World" trademark application for charitable fundraising, so perhaps HtWF is looking for help to deal with that. Or could there be another problem here--namely, a challenge to the Foundation's repeated mention of Michael Jackson in connection with its site & fundraising activity? Either way, if Michael Jackson were really funding this charity, wouldn't he be connecting it to his legal team as well?
Which leads me to the next and last curious piece of evidence. Johnson claims in a recent interview that "it is NOT true, that HTWF stopped functioning as a charity at any point since its inception in 1992." But if that's the case, why do both the California Attorney General and the IRS treat Jackson's HTWF and Johnson's HTWF as two legally distinct organizations?
California AG:
IRS:
Putting together the above facts with various statements made by Foundation President Johnson, one reasonably wonders whether the Heal the World Foundation's supposed support from Jackson actually existed. Instead, the Foundation would appear to be an independent effort by fans who have scooped up the Foundation's dead trademarks and around (reportedly) 2,000 Jackson-themed domain names.
On its website, the Foundation continues to promote its "behind the scenes" connections to Jackson & indicates that after his scheduled "final performances" Jackson would have been "devoted to HTWF." Judging from the Foundation's discussion board, such statements have created the impression that Jackson really did support this charity. If the Foundation cannot provide documented proof of an actual connection to Jackson, donors--and regulators--have good reason to question whether this charity is really an improvement on its failed predecessor.
In a post-9/11 compromise, the New York City Metropolitan Transportation Authority allows uniform workers to have religious headwear provided that it is colored blue and bears the MTA logo.
Despite a discrimination lawsuit brought against it by the U.S. government back in 2004, the MTA insists that the policy is appropriate, on the grounds that "standardized uniforms assist our customers in quickly identifying employees if they need emergency assistance or just travel directions." The department does not see any problem in requiring believers to brand their religious garb, so it continues to cite Sikh and Muslim employees for failing to follow the policy.
The Sikh Coalition has protested, and a majority of the New York City Council has come out in support of forcing the MTA to end what is truly a stunning example of bureaucratic ignorance.
An Iranian woman in Austin, Texas embodies the role of communications media in mobilizing protests against the hijacked election.
Christianity Today is a "not-for-profit communications ministry." You wouldn't know that, however, from their coverage of the assassination of abortion doctor George Tiller by a right-to-life evangelical--i.e., a core part of Christianity Today's demographic. Since the news broke I've been tracking the home page, and the image you see above shows how Christianity Today has chosen to fulfill its mission to help Christians "make sense of the world"--
Namely, opining on the need for Jon & Kate of +8 fame "to confess their sins" . . .
And, of course, the pressing issue of John Calvin's critique of medieval indulgences:
I understand that this must be a rather difficult situation for an evangelical nonprofit such as CT to address, but if communication is your business you only undermine your reputation by burying your head in the digital sand when some kills in the name of the very movement that you claim to represent.
PSYCHO KILLER QU'EST QUE C'EST EXTRA:
If you think the above isn't fair, just be glad I didn't lead with the following alternate frame:
Do do-gooders have a responsibility not to grab free content from commercial providers? Just a question that popped up after I read this comment on a post about circumventing the WSJ's firewall:
My father was laid off from the WSJ 4 months ago, we've moved from our modest 3 bedroom home to small 2 room place, and my parents are always fighting now.
Let businesses try to figure their model out without helping the general public steal from them. In the end, it hurts real people no matter how harmless you think your post may be.
Via News From Me, a 1950s game show appearance by legendary comics writer Leo Dorfman features a revealing discussion about comics + society, from their popularity among soldiers in WWII to their suitability for children just a decade later.
The social enterprise community has celebrated the power of The Girl Effect, a video that uses Flash typography to make a simplistic yet appealing claim for helping girls become economically independent.
Below: a viral conservative Christian video uses a similar rhetorical technique to different ends:
Are ANIMATED BOLD ALL CAPS really an effective means of persuasion, or do they merely reinforce pre-existing values?
Over the weekend I posted my thoughts on the Wall St. Journal's lengthy article on Donald Duck in Germany. What struck me most: the stylistic contrast in relation to cultural identity:
The article ascribes the character’s popularity to the strip’s longtime translator, Erika Fuchs, an art history Ph.D. who rewrote Carl Barks’ dialogue to include references to German literature, myth and politics. . . .
Post-war Germany was in the process of restoring its identity after Nazi ideology raised serious questions as to the legitimacy of the country’s cultural heritage. A funny book provided a means for Fuchs to highlight the value of German traditions free from worrisome evocations of the Nazi’s use of German culture to establish ethnic supremacy.
Barks wrote in a radically different context. America’s literary heritage was not morally suspect; to have used Donald Duck to legitimize Melville or Dickinson would have seemed pretentious, if not bizarre. Barks’ visual and verbal rhetoric is instead far more pragmatic–Donald and his retinue are on a perpetual quest to succeed in a world full of baffling new tools and old ways.
As it happens, I'm in the middle of one of my periodic re-readings of Barks, so this stuff is fresh on my mind. Note particularly this observation
America’s literary heritage was not morally suspect; to have used Donald Duck to legitimize Melville or Dickinson would have seemed pretentious, if not bizarre. Barks’ visual and verbal rhetoric is instead far more pragmatic . . .
and compare it to the following scene from Barks' Snow Fun, a story in which Donald and his nephews raise money to buy one of the era's emblems of middle-class success, manufactured skis:
One of my pictures in the Barks post illustrates another dimension of Barks' examination of cultural identity. It's from Donald Duck and the Mummy's Ring, a brilliant (and funny) exploration of the question of whether the West should repatriate cultural objects to their country of origin. The kicker for me in the story is that it's more complex than a reductionistic tale of good natives and bad Americans--the Egyptians themselves are a blend of traditional believers and secular Westernizers, epitomized by a strategic nationalist educated at "Yarvard" in the States.
This may seem a bit goofy, but that's exactly why it works. As I concluded in my previous post,
What both the German and American versions of Barks’ work illustrate is the strategic value of junk media in remaking society. That so many people continue to view comics as little more than trash is not necessarily a bad thing–it frees the medium for creative expression outside the normative constraints of so-called high art, thereby retaining comics’ power as a cultural trojan horse.
A reminder of what started it all:
From the giveaway, Donald Duck's Atom Bomb
Throughout the ages the finger-painter, the play-do sculptor, the Lincoln-logger stood alone against the day care teacher of her time.
She did not live to earn approval stickers, she lived for herself that she might achieve things that are the glory of all humanity.
These are my terms, I do not care to play by any others. And if the court will allow me, it's nap time.
Note the windows. Design transparency was a key part of the growth of confidence in franchised fast food--sent the message that the place was sanitary and the food, healthy.
The memory of The Jungle was still fresh.
Everything that advertises must converge at Rome's St. Regis Hotel, where the press junket for Angels & Demons meets cute with The Papal Foundation, also convened there at . . . where else? . . . Le Grand Bar!
Via Nikki Finke.
A UK charity has sparked a religious war with a comic strip aimed at promoting tolerance. The latest issue of Who Cares? Trust magazine Klic! features Standing Up For What You Believe In, in which a cross-wearing Christian bullies a Muslim girl for wearing a hijab. The key scene (image above):
In a cartoon strip, a boy wearing a large cross around his neck is shown telling a friend that a smiling Muslim girl in a veil looks like a terrorist.
He later confronts her and shouts: "Hey, whatever your name is, what are you hiding under your turban?"
She replies that the garment is called a hijab and that it is part of her religion "like the cross you wear".
The girl is then shown standing up for another boy, who is being bullied, and her behaviour is contrasted with that of the boy wearing the cross.
Some Christians are in an uproar over being stereotyped as bigots, and the fact that the charity receives a substantial amount of funding from the government is only stoking the fire.
The charity's intriguing response: the cross is not a reference to Christians.
Who Cares? Trust chief executive Natasha Finlayson described the cross as "bling" rather than a religious symbol.
Via Robot 6
The Girl Scout cookie program is a regular part of my nonprofit law & social enterprise teaching. Not surprising, really, because it raises a number of interesting legal and strategic issues.
One I haven't discussed: the ethics of bosses soliciting their employees. CNN has raised this question on its iReport section; a number of responses have already been posted.
