Tweet
Size Matters II
asbarez
Friday, January 27th, 2012
BY GAREN YEGPARIAN
Turkey's chest thumping, arrogant, threats against France, over the
anti-denial legislation that passed both houses of the French
legislature, betray Turkey's inherent weakness, stemming from its
refusal to come to terms with and atone for its past misdeeds, and the
Armenian Genocide isn't its only transgression against humanity.
Much like an adolescent whose body is big but whose brain still
doesn't know what to do with it, Turkey is thrashing about, lumbering
bewildered, and trying to find its way and place in the international
community. An just like its youthful human analog, it hasn't yet
learned that being straightforward will help it progress.
Does anyone recall Turkey being quite this loud in its knee jerk,
denial-policy-based reaction before? Was it this intense a decade ago
with France's recognition of the Genocide? How about the UN's
acceptance of its special rapporteur's findings about the Armenian
Genocide? Or the U.S. House of Representatives' passage of Armenian
Genocide resolutions? Or the U.S. arms embargoing arms to Turkey over
its invasion and occupation of Cyprus? Or the decades long farce of
the EU keeping Turkey as `always a bridesmaid never a bride'?
The reason Turkey is so voluble and strident in its reaction is its
self-perception as being in a much stronger position than it used to
be. And there's some truth to this. Its economy has been growing
rapidly (though some argue unsustainably). Its population exceeds
that of every European country except Russia and Germany (though a
quarter of that is actually Kurdish). It has had relatively better
governance for a decade now. It feels young, strong, and surging. It
has all the attributes that coupled with immaturity, overweening
pride, and insecurity lead to bullying.
So it's clear that bigger can mean badder.
That's why it is an insoluble mystery to me why that same lesson is
not applied by many in society to another institution that is a
manifest example of `bigger-badder'. I refer to those who reflexively
defend large corporate interests.
Corporations are set up as vehicles for conducting business to make
money. That is their primary purpose (with the exception of those
organizations that incorporate as a legal necessity, even though their
purposes are charitable or civic). When an organization gets big, it
unavoidably becomes less personal, and the money making impetus
becomes the sole organizing theme and unifying factor. So far this is
not a problem.
But, as with any human endeavor, there are costs and tradeoffs. The
efficiencies that accrue to big companies enable them to get ever
bigger, and with their financial prowess, deform the functions of
their surrounding societies, bending them to better suit their
purposes. This happens at a cost to the individual citizens of these
societies, usually impinging on their freedoms and voice in
governance.
The only way to counterbalance this deformation is through control,
limitation, of corporate activity. A single citizen is clearly not up
to such an onerous task. That's where the citizenry's representative,
the government, comes in. It is the only agent capable of
counterbalancing corporate power.
However, big government can be just as effective a choker of
individual liberty as any money-addled corporation. So citizens must
be aware of and involved in their government, otherwise, `clookhuh
g'arneh, g'erta' (it will run amok). As paraphrased from a 1790
speech by John Philpot Curran in his ` Speech Upon the Right of
Election', `eternal vigilance is the price of liberty'.
Corporations of course, act to subvert the only power able to check
theirs, so citizens must be doubly vigilant. A current example of
this awareness/engagement requirement is the effort now underway to
restore corporations to what they rightfully are, legal constructs
that exist based on the government's permission. Two years ago, in
its `Citizens United' decision, the U.S. Supreme Court effectively
granted `personhood' to corporations, a huge threat to every human
citizen. Now, many are out to remedy this abomination.
Big Turkey is bad. Big Corporations are bad. `Citizens United' is
bad. Please explore this issue and get involved in taking back your
government and powers as a citizen.
asbarez
Friday, January 27th, 2012
BY GAREN YEGPARIAN
Turkey's chest thumping, arrogant, threats against France, over the
anti-denial legislation that passed both houses of the French
legislature, betray Turkey's inherent weakness, stemming from its
refusal to come to terms with and atone for its past misdeeds, and the
Armenian Genocide isn't its only transgression against humanity.
Much like an adolescent whose body is big but whose brain still
doesn't know what to do with it, Turkey is thrashing about, lumbering
bewildered, and trying to find its way and place in the international
community. An just like its youthful human analog, it hasn't yet
learned that being straightforward will help it progress.
Does anyone recall Turkey being quite this loud in its knee jerk,
denial-policy-based reaction before? Was it this intense a decade ago
with France's recognition of the Genocide? How about the UN's
acceptance of its special rapporteur's findings about the Armenian
Genocide? Or the U.S. House of Representatives' passage of Armenian
Genocide resolutions? Or the U.S. arms embargoing arms to Turkey over
its invasion and occupation of Cyprus? Or the decades long farce of
the EU keeping Turkey as `always a bridesmaid never a bride'?
The reason Turkey is so voluble and strident in its reaction is its
self-perception as being in a much stronger position than it used to
be. And there's some truth to this. Its economy has been growing
rapidly (though some argue unsustainably). Its population exceeds
that of every European country except Russia and Germany (though a
quarter of that is actually Kurdish). It has had relatively better
governance for a decade now. It feels young, strong, and surging. It
has all the attributes that coupled with immaturity, overweening
pride, and insecurity lead to bullying.
So it's clear that bigger can mean badder.
That's why it is an insoluble mystery to me why that same lesson is
not applied by many in society to another institution that is a
manifest example of `bigger-badder'. I refer to those who reflexively
defend large corporate interests.
Corporations are set up as vehicles for conducting business to make
money. That is their primary purpose (with the exception of those
organizations that incorporate as a legal necessity, even though their
purposes are charitable or civic). When an organization gets big, it
unavoidably becomes less personal, and the money making impetus
becomes the sole organizing theme and unifying factor. So far this is
not a problem.
But, as with any human endeavor, there are costs and tradeoffs. The
efficiencies that accrue to big companies enable them to get ever
bigger, and with their financial prowess, deform the functions of
their surrounding societies, bending them to better suit their
purposes. This happens at a cost to the individual citizens of these
societies, usually impinging on their freedoms and voice in
governance.
The only way to counterbalance this deformation is through control,
limitation, of corporate activity. A single citizen is clearly not up
to such an onerous task. That's where the citizenry's representative,
the government, comes in. It is the only agent capable of
counterbalancing corporate power.
However, big government can be just as effective a choker of
individual liberty as any money-addled corporation. So citizens must
be aware of and involved in their government, otherwise, `clookhuh
g'arneh, g'erta' (it will run amok). As paraphrased from a 1790
speech by John Philpot Curran in his ` Speech Upon the Right of
Election', `eternal vigilance is the price of liberty'.
Corporations of course, act to subvert the only power able to check
theirs, so citizens must be doubly vigilant. A current example of
this awareness/engagement requirement is the effort now underway to
restore corporations to what they rightfully are, legal constructs
that exist based on the government's permission. Two years ago, in
its `Citizens United' decision, the U.S. Supreme Court effectively
granted `personhood' to corporations, a huge threat to every human
citizen. Now, many are out to remedy this abomination.
Big Turkey is bad. Big Corporations are bad. `Citizens United' is
bad. Please explore this issue and get involved in taking back your
government and powers as a citizen.