One of the foundational principles of Catholic social teaching is subsidiarity—and the growth of state capitalism is a serious issue of concern as the growth has occurred largely in totalitarian regimes.
State capitalism is a serious issue, though hardly a new one. It has been around forever and the use of state power to develop, protect, and enforce commercial trading commodities and routes is a notorious history; look into the Opium Wars for one example, and remember that the initial state-financed voyages to the New World were trade inspired.
Subsidiarity is addressed in the Catechism:
“1883 Socialization also presents dangers. Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. the teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which "a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co-ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good."
“1884 God has not willed to reserve to himself all exercise of power. He entrusts to every creature the functions it is capable of performing, according to the capacities of its own nature. This mode of governance ought to be followed in social life. the way God acts in governing the world, which bears witness to such great regard for human freedom, should inspire the wisdom of those who govern human communities. They should behave as ministers of divine providence.
“1885 The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to all forms of collectivism. It sets limits for state intervention. It aims at harmonizing the relationships between individuals and societies. It tends toward the establishment of true international order.”
What is the Future of State Capitalism?
May 2, 2008
Jim Heskett
Whether we think we are part of a free market or not, are we really living in an era of state capitalism? What are we to make of estimates that state-owned sovereign funds, led by Abu Dhabi and fueled mostly by oil revenues and trade surpluses, now total more than the value of the world's hedge funds and will grow by six times over just in the next seven years? Or that states like China and Russia now own the world's largest corporations? Or that, according to an estimate by the American Enterprise Institute, economies of countries with authoritarian regimes have grown faster over the past ten years than economies of the most politically free countries?
Whatever happened to the fears just a few short years ago that global corporations with allegiance to no government would constitute an important challenge to the world economic order, one that would be impossible to control with conventional laws and regulations? One doesn't hear much about that these days as state-owned corporations now dwarf even the largest privately-owned global organizations, with PetroChina currently leading the list with a market value of more than $1 trillion.
The impact of this phenomenon on competition is interesting. Just ask the manager of a privately-owned global corporation how easy it is to compete with a state-owned institution (and the state's sovereign fund investors) when his competitor is able to arrange to have state aid or investment provided or withheld in large quantities to a potential customer's country of origin depending on whether that customer favors a private or state-owned vendor.
The phenomenon has interesting implications for those in need of capital, particularly if the source of the capital is your strongest economic competitor. For example, the United States, European Union, and South Africa recently have seen several of their very large financial institutions seek help from sovereign funds or state-owned companies with ample money to invest. Among the largest investors have been Abu Dhabi's and Kuwait's Investment Authorities and the China Investment Corporation. There have been outcries for measures requiring investors to adhere to certain practices regarding disclosure and intent. But typically, unless majority investments are at stake, there is little other than moral suasion that can be used to persuade investors to avoid making investments for political reasons or adhere to certain standards for transparency in their investment practices. The stronger the need for capital, the fewer even the most modest requests placed on the investors. Only when investments in what is perceived as critical infrastructure, such as ports, is involved has the U.S. Congress, for example, drawn the line in prohibiting a transaction.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
We Hold These Truths
In 1960 a Catholic theologian wrote an insightful book about America, and as I was reading through it came across a very timely paragraph.
As you read it, keep in mind what many Catholics have called the protestanization of Catholicism since Vatican II, and liberal reaction to the Iraq War:
“The third source of Protestant moral anxiety is the problem of power. The practical problem, as put to policy, is enormously complicated in the nuclear age, in the midst of a profound historical crisis of civilization, and over against an ideology of force that is also a spreading political imperialism. This, however, is surely no reason for distorting the problem by thrusting into it a set of theoretically false dilemmas—by saying, for instance, that to use power is prideful and therefore bad, and not to use it is irresponsible and therefore worse. The tradition of reason declines all such reckless simplism. It rejects the cynical dictum of Lenin that “the state is a club.” On the other hand, it does not attempt to fashion the state in the image of an Eastern-seaboard “liberal” who at once abhors power and adores it (since by him, emergent from the matrix of American Protestant culture, power is unconsciously regarded as satanic). The traditional ethic starts with the assumption that, as there is no law without force to vindicate it, so there is no politics without power to promote it. All politics is power politics—up to a point.” (John Courtenay Murray, S.J. (1960) We Hold These Truths: Catholic Reflections on the American Proposition. New York: Sheed and Ward. p. 288)
The American proposition is that all are created equal, a situation existing nowhere else on earth, certainly not within the monarchies that governed virtually everywhere else where no one was equal to royalty.
The Ameerican proposition became a global phenomena—the beckoning of the new world—most strongly felt and lived during the California Gold Rush, when The World Rushed In.
As you read it, keep in mind what many Catholics have called the protestanization of Catholicism since Vatican II, and liberal reaction to the Iraq War:
“The third source of Protestant moral anxiety is the problem of power. The practical problem, as put to policy, is enormously complicated in the nuclear age, in the midst of a profound historical crisis of civilization, and over against an ideology of force that is also a spreading political imperialism. This, however, is surely no reason for distorting the problem by thrusting into it a set of theoretically false dilemmas—by saying, for instance, that to use power is prideful and therefore bad, and not to use it is irresponsible and therefore worse. The tradition of reason declines all such reckless simplism. It rejects the cynical dictum of Lenin that “the state is a club.” On the other hand, it does not attempt to fashion the state in the image of an Eastern-seaboard “liberal” who at once abhors power and adores it (since by him, emergent from the matrix of American Protestant culture, power is unconsciously regarded as satanic). The traditional ethic starts with the assumption that, as there is no law without force to vindicate it, so there is no politics without power to promote it. All politics is power politics—up to a point.” (John Courtenay Murray, S.J. (1960) We Hold These Truths: Catholic Reflections on the American Proposition. New York: Sheed and Ward. p. 288)
The American proposition is that all are created equal, a situation existing nowhere else on earth, certainly not within the monarchies that governed virtually everywhere else where no one was equal to royalty.
The Ameerican proposition became a global phenomena—the beckoning of the new world—most strongly felt and lived during the California Gold Rush, when The World Rushed In.
Monday, May 12, 2008
Communion Denied Pro Abortion Governor
It is heartening to see American Bishops begin to assert their traditional role as defenders of the faith to their flocks, and stand for the ancient Catholic social teaching that protects life.
They also need to consider revisiting their call for abolition of capital punishment as the historic Catholic support for capital punishment—part of the tradition protecting the innocent—is vital to the social teaching of the Church, as that teaching needs to remain true to itself to retain its potency in the conversion of sinners and retention of the flock.
To overturn a principle as ancient as the judicial use of capital punishment—as the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops proposes with its Campaign to End the Use of the Death Penalty—could bring all of the Church's enduring principles into question as noted by Avery Cardinal Dulles: "The reversal of a doctrine as well established as the legitimacy of capital punishment would raise serious problems regarding the credibility of the magisterium." (2004, Catholic Teaching on the Death Penalty, in Religion and the Death Penalty, Owens, Carlson, & Elshtain (Eds.) p. 26)
Kansas: archbishop bars governor from Communion
Kansas, May. 9, 2008 (CWNews.com) - Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City has announced that Governor Kathleen Sebelius should not receive Communion because of her support for legal abortion.
In a column appearing on May 9 in the archdiocesan newspaper, The Leaven, the archbishop said that Governor Sebelius has sent a "spiritually lethal message" by implying that she could remain a Catholic in good standing while supporting abortion on demand.
The archbishop's column cited in particular the governor's veto of the Comprehensive Abortion Reform Act, which would have required abortionists to inform women about the effects of the procedure and alternatives to abortion.
The governor's stand in favor of abortion is particularly painful, Archbishop Naumann wrote, because Sebelius is a Catholic. He reported that he had met with her "several times over many months to discuss with her the grave spiritual and moral consequences of her public actions." Because the governor has now rejected his pleas and her public stand constitutes a scandal to the faithful, the archbishop said that he has now directed her to refrain from receiving Communion. Archbishop Naumann reported that he has asked Governor Sebelius to accept this directive, so that she will "not require from me any additional pastoral actions."
They also need to consider revisiting their call for abolition of capital punishment as the historic Catholic support for capital punishment—part of the tradition protecting the innocent—is vital to the social teaching of the Church, as that teaching needs to remain true to itself to retain its potency in the conversion of sinners and retention of the flock.
To overturn a principle as ancient as the judicial use of capital punishment—as the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops proposes with its Campaign to End the Use of the Death Penalty—could bring all of the Church's enduring principles into question as noted by Avery Cardinal Dulles: "The reversal of a doctrine as well established as the legitimacy of capital punishment would raise serious problems regarding the credibility of the magisterium." (2004, Catholic Teaching on the Death Penalty, in Religion and the Death Penalty, Owens, Carlson, & Elshtain (Eds.) p. 26)
Kansas: archbishop bars governor from Communion
Kansas, May. 9, 2008 (CWNews.com) - Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City has announced that Governor Kathleen Sebelius should not receive Communion because of her support for legal abortion.
In a column appearing on May 9 in the archdiocesan newspaper, The Leaven, the archbishop said that Governor Sebelius has sent a "spiritually lethal message" by implying that she could remain a Catholic in good standing while supporting abortion on demand.
The archbishop's column cited in particular the governor's veto of the Comprehensive Abortion Reform Act, which would have required abortionists to inform women about the effects of the procedure and alternatives to abortion.
The governor's stand in favor of abortion is particularly painful, Archbishop Naumann wrote, because Sebelius is a Catholic. He reported that he had met with her "several times over many months to discuss with her the grave spiritual and moral consequences of her public actions." Because the governor has now rejected his pleas and her public stand constitutes a scandal to the faithful, the archbishop said that he has now directed her to refrain from receiving Communion. Archbishop Naumann reported that he has asked Governor Sebelius to accept this directive, so that she will "not require from me any additional pastoral actions."
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Papal Visit
His trip to America caused a significant shift in public attitudes towards him and the Church, which is good news and a testament to the power of communication, a backstory to the great new book by Russell Shaw Nothing to Hide: Secrecy, Communication and Communion in the Catholic Church.
Pope Benedict's Image Improves Following U.S. Visit
May 6, 2008
Following his first visit to the United States as spiritual leader of the world's Catholics, Pope Benedict XVI is viewed more favorably than he was a few weeks before his trip. Currently, 61% of Americans say they have a favorable impression of the pope, up from 52% in late March.
The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, was conducted April 23-30 among 1,000 Americans; it was conducted shortly after the pope's April 15-20 visit to Washington D.C. and New York City. The survey finds a dramatic increase in the proportion of Catholics expressing highly favorable views of the pontiff. Nearly half (49%) of Catholics say they have a very favorable opinion of the pope, up from 36% in the late March survey, conducted March 24-29. Overall, positive opinions of Pope Benedict among Catholics have risen from 74% to 83%.
Pope Benedict's Image Improves Following U.S. Visit
May 6, 2008
Following his first visit to the United States as spiritual leader of the world's Catholics, Pope Benedict XVI is viewed more favorably than he was a few weeks before his trip. Currently, 61% of Americans say they have a favorable impression of the pope, up from 52% in late March.
The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, was conducted April 23-30 among 1,000 Americans; it was conducted shortly after the pope's April 15-20 visit to Washington D.C. and New York City. The survey finds a dramatic increase in the proportion of Catholics expressing highly favorable views of the pontiff. Nearly half (49%) of Catholics say they have a very favorable opinion of the pope, up from 36% in the late March survey, conducted March 24-29. Overall, positive opinions of Pope Benedict among Catholics have risen from 74% to 83%.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Islam & the Vatican
The most important religious and public policy related discussion in our time continues.
When the Turbans of Persia Pay Homage to the Pastor of Rome
Two days of talks, at the Vatican, between the scholars of Christianity and those of Shiite Islam. As in the medieval disputes. On the topic dearest to Joseph Ratzinger: faith and reason. The strange openness of Iranian president Ahmadinejad
by Sandro Magister
ROMA, May 7, 2008 –
The letter of the 138, with its developments, is neither the only nor the main track of dialogue between the Catholic Church and Islam. On the Vatican side, it operates on a variety of terrains and with different counterparts.
The latest talks with Muslim representatives took place in the Vatican, with eight representatives of the Islamic Culture and Relations Organization of Tehran, and therefore with representatives of Shiite Islam, which has its center of gravity in Iran but is present in many other countries, with a following that accounts for about 12-15 percent of the Muslim community worldwide.
The colloquium began on Monday, April 28, and concluded on Wednesday, April 30, with a meeting with Benedict XVI in a room adjacent to the general audience hall. The Holy See, in a statement, reported that "the pope said he was particularly satisfied with the topic chosen."
And in effect, the topic was one of those most dear to Joseph Ratzinger: "Faith and Reason in Christianity and Islam".
It was developed in three subtopics, each introduced by one Catholic representative and one Muslim:
1. "Faith and reason: Which relation?", with the speaker for the Catholic side Vittorio Possenti, a professor of political philosophy at the University of Venice and a member of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences;
2. "Theology/Kalam as inquiry into the rationality of faith," with the speaker for the Catholic side Piero Coda, a professor of theology at the Pontifical Lateran University and the president of the Italian Theological Association;
3. "Faith and reason confronted with the phenomenon of violence," with the speaker for the Catholic side Jesuit Fr. Michel Fédou, a theologian and Church historian of the Centre Sèvres in Paris.
In addition to these three speakers, the Catholic delegation was composed of Ramzi Garmou, the Chaldean archbishop of Tehran; archbishop Pier Luigi Celata, secretary of the pontifical council for interreligious dialogue; Khaled Akasheh, the office head for Islam at the same council; and Ilaria Morali, a professor of dogmatic theology at the Pontifical Gregorian University and a specialist in non-Christian religions.
Jointly presiding over the colloquium were cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, president of the pontifical council for interreligious dialogue, and Mahdi Mostafavi, president of the Islamic Culture and Relations Organization of Tehran.
Mostafavi is a "Seyyed," or one of the direct descendants of the prophet Muhammad, and until two years ago he was deputy foreign minister of Iran. Before returning to Iran, he told the Rome newspaper "il Riformista":
"I see president Ahmadinejad at least two times a week. Spiritual and moral values are fundamental in our government decisions, and I am his spiritual adviser".
This is enough to demonstrate how high the profile of the Iranian designation is, and how closely connected it is to the leadership of Ahamadinejad, an exponent of the most hardline wing of the Khomeinist regime, the one most hostile to the West and most explicit in denying the state of Israel's right to exist.
It should nonetheless be noted that the Tehran regime, during the explosion of violence that followed Benedict XVI's lecture in Regensburg, distinguished itself by its moderation. Iranian Shiite Islam is quite a few years ahead of Sunni Islam in cultivating relations with the Church of Rome, on the religious, cultural, and even political terrain. After meeting the new apostolic nuncio in Iran, archbishop Jean-Paul Gobel, last April 6, president Ahmadinejad called the Vatican a positive force for justice and peace in the world. Or rather, according to Iranian interests, a potential ally against the pressure of the United States and European countries.
The colloquium of recent days was the sixth in a series. The next will be held in Tehran within two years, and will be preceded by a preparatory meeting.
This does not mean that the Church of Rome is taking a conciliatory stance in these talks. Professor Possenti, one of the speakers at the latest round of talks, signed an appeal against Iranian president Ahmadinejad on November 3, 2005, because of his anti-Israel statements. The appeal was followed by a sit-in protest in front of Iran's embassy in Rome.
Another member of the Catholic delegation at the recent colloquium, Ilaria Morali, is also anything but submissive. Her thesis is that the dialogue between the Catholic Church and non-Christian religions must be guided by the two documents from 1964 that were the first to lay down the guidelines: the encyclical of Paul VI "Ecclesiam Suam" and the conciliar constitution "Lumen Gentium." Neither of these refers to non-Christian religions as ways of salvation. The only savior of all is Jesus Christ, as restated in 2000 in the declaration "Dominus Iesus." Thus dialogue is primarily missionary, its aim is to extend the "colloquium salutis" established by God, in Christ, with humanity. It is only on a lower level that it seeks common ground of ethical and cultural understanding, for more peaceful coexistence.
When the Turbans of Persia Pay Homage to the Pastor of Rome
Two days of talks, at the Vatican, between the scholars of Christianity and those of Shiite Islam. As in the medieval disputes. On the topic dearest to Joseph Ratzinger: faith and reason. The strange openness of Iranian president Ahmadinejad
by Sandro Magister
ROMA, May 7, 2008 –
The letter of the 138, with its developments, is neither the only nor the main track of dialogue between the Catholic Church and Islam. On the Vatican side, it operates on a variety of terrains and with different counterparts.
The latest talks with Muslim representatives took place in the Vatican, with eight representatives of the Islamic Culture and Relations Organization of Tehran, and therefore with representatives of Shiite Islam, which has its center of gravity in Iran but is present in many other countries, with a following that accounts for about 12-15 percent of the Muslim community worldwide.
The colloquium began on Monday, April 28, and concluded on Wednesday, April 30, with a meeting with Benedict XVI in a room adjacent to the general audience hall. The Holy See, in a statement, reported that "the pope said he was particularly satisfied with the topic chosen."
And in effect, the topic was one of those most dear to Joseph Ratzinger: "Faith and Reason in Christianity and Islam".
It was developed in three subtopics, each introduced by one Catholic representative and one Muslim:
1. "Faith and reason: Which relation?", with the speaker for the Catholic side Vittorio Possenti, a professor of political philosophy at the University of Venice and a member of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences;
2. "Theology/Kalam as inquiry into the rationality of faith," with the speaker for the Catholic side Piero Coda, a professor of theology at the Pontifical Lateran University and the president of the Italian Theological Association;
3. "Faith and reason confronted with the phenomenon of violence," with the speaker for the Catholic side Jesuit Fr. Michel Fédou, a theologian and Church historian of the Centre Sèvres in Paris.
In addition to these three speakers, the Catholic delegation was composed of Ramzi Garmou, the Chaldean archbishop of Tehran; archbishop Pier Luigi Celata, secretary of the pontifical council for interreligious dialogue; Khaled Akasheh, the office head for Islam at the same council; and Ilaria Morali, a professor of dogmatic theology at the Pontifical Gregorian University and a specialist in non-Christian religions.
Jointly presiding over the colloquium were cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, president of the pontifical council for interreligious dialogue, and Mahdi Mostafavi, president of the Islamic Culture and Relations Organization of Tehran.
Mostafavi is a "Seyyed," or one of the direct descendants of the prophet Muhammad, and until two years ago he was deputy foreign minister of Iran. Before returning to Iran, he told the Rome newspaper "il Riformista":
"I see president Ahmadinejad at least two times a week. Spiritual and moral values are fundamental in our government decisions, and I am his spiritual adviser".
This is enough to demonstrate how high the profile of the Iranian designation is, and how closely connected it is to the leadership of Ahamadinejad, an exponent of the most hardline wing of the Khomeinist regime, the one most hostile to the West and most explicit in denying the state of Israel's right to exist.
It should nonetheless be noted that the Tehran regime, during the explosion of violence that followed Benedict XVI's lecture in Regensburg, distinguished itself by its moderation. Iranian Shiite Islam is quite a few years ahead of Sunni Islam in cultivating relations with the Church of Rome, on the religious, cultural, and even political terrain. After meeting the new apostolic nuncio in Iran, archbishop Jean-Paul Gobel, last April 6, president Ahmadinejad called the Vatican a positive force for justice and peace in the world. Or rather, according to Iranian interests, a potential ally against the pressure of the United States and European countries.
The colloquium of recent days was the sixth in a series. The next will be held in Tehran within two years, and will be preceded by a preparatory meeting.
This does not mean that the Church of Rome is taking a conciliatory stance in these talks. Professor Possenti, one of the speakers at the latest round of talks, signed an appeal against Iranian president Ahmadinejad on November 3, 2005, because of his anti-Israel statements. The appeal was followed by a sit-in protest in front of Iran's embassy in Rome.
Another member of the Catholic delegation at the recent colloquium, Ilaria Morali, is also anything but submissive. Her thesis is that the dialogue between the Catholic Church and non-Christian religions must be guided by the two documents from 1964 that were the first to lay down the guidelines: the encyclical of Paul VI "Ecclesiam Suam" and the conciliar constitution "Lumen Gentium." Neither of these refers to non-Christian religions as ways of salvation. The only savior of all is Jesus Christ, as restated in 2000 in the declaration "Dominus Iesus." Thus dialogue is primarily missionary, its aim is to extend the "colloquium salutis" established by God, in Christ, with humanity. It is only on a lower level that it seeks common ground of ethical and cultural understanding, for more peaceful coexistence.
Friday, May 9, 2008
Hard Work Pays Off
This is a wonderful story of the opportunity that still exists in our great country, the preferred destination for much of the world.
Actions Speak Louder than Words: A Case Study
Contrarian By: Sally C. Pipes 5.6.2008
A Contrarian column, as readers have come to know, is a relatively simple matter of refuting the latest foolishness from militant feminists and socialists, who are often the same people. In that cause, however, I have never attempted anything on the scale of Adam Shepard, author of Scratch Beginnings: Me, $25, and the Search for the American Dream. So let me bring his story to your attention.
As a student at Merrimack College in Andover, Massachusetts, Mr. Shepard was force-fed books by pop-socialist author Barbara Ehrenreich. As he explains:
My story is a rebuttal to Barbara Ehrenreich’s Nickel and Dimed and Bait and Switch, the books that spoke on the death of the American dream. With investigative projects of her own, Ehrenreich attempted to establish that working stiffs are doomed to live in the same disgraceful conditions forever. I reject that theory and my story is a search to evaluate if hard work and discipline provide any payoff whatsoever, or if they are, as Ehrenreich suggests, futile pursuits.”
To prove his point, Mr. Shepard started out literally from scratch, with a tarp, a sleeping bag, an empty gym bag, the clothes on his back, and a grand total of $25, which one could quickly spend at Starbucks. He set aside his previous contacts, his college education, and his credit history. For all practical purposes, his previous life did not exist, and he would not permit himself to beg. A train dropped him at a random place outside of his home state, where his goal was to become a regular member of society in 365 days.
That meant he would have a functioning automobile, live in a furnished apartment, save $2,500 in cash, and be in a position to improve his circumstances in school or business. In Charleston, South Carolina, where he first landed, the quest proved educational.
Mr. Shepard learned that, in addition to food and lodging, the homeless shelter run by Crisis Ministries deployed doctors, nurses, a legal team, social workers, and two psychiatrists. He also learned that “any work is better than no work,” and unlike many others accepted what he could find. For a time he worked hanging up baby clothes. One day he earned $24, only to find it whittled down to $14 from the various fees of the employment agency.
While others languished, Mr. Shepard learned how to pitch himself, and got hired by FastCompany, a moving outfit, doing brute physical work in which he had no experience, and for which he was not exactly suited. As a mover he endured injury, sickness, ridicule, and conflicts with colleagues. He also kept working and learned, as he put it, “to delay gratification” rather than reward himself with goodies. After only six months, Mr. Shepard was driving an automobile and had saved $2,514.36.
Actions Speak Louder than Words: A Case Study
Contrarian By: Sally C. Pipes 5.6.2008
A Contrarian column, as readers have come to know, is a relatively simple matter of refuting the latest foolishness from militant feminists and socialists, who are often the same people. In that cause, however, I have never attempted anything on the scale of Adam Shepard, author of Scratch Beginnings: Me, $25, and the Search for the American Dream. So let me bring his story to your attention.
As a student at Merrimack College in Andover, Massachusetts, Mr. Shepard was force-fed books by pop-socialist author Barbara Ehrenreich. As he explains:
My story is a rebuttal to Barbara Ehrenreich’s Nickel and Dimed and Bait and Switch, the books that spoke on the death of the American dream. With investigative projects of her own, Ehrenreich attempted to establish that working stiffs are doomed to live in the same disgraceful conditions forever. I reject that theory and my story is a search to evaluate if hard work and discipline provide any payoff whatsoever, or if they are, as Ehrenreich suggests, futile pursuits.”
To prove his point, Mr. Shepard started out literally from scratch, with a tarp, a sleeping bag, an empty gym bag, the clothes on his back, and a grand total of $25, which one could quickly spend at Starbucks. He set aside his previous contacts, his college education, and his credit history. For all practical purposes, his previous life did not exist, and he would not permit himself to beg. A train dropped him at a random place outside of his home state, where his goal was to become a regular member of society in 365 days.
That meant he would have a functioning automobile, live in a furnished apartment, save $2,500 in cash, and be in a position to improve his circumstances in school or business. In Charleston, South Carolina, where he first landed, the quest proved educational.
Mr. Shepard learned that, in addition to food and lodging, the homeless shelter run by Crisis Ministries deployed doctors, nurses, a legal team, social workers, and two psychiatrists. He also learned that “any work is better than no work,” and unlike many others accepted what he could find. For a time he worked hanging up baby clothes. One day he earned $24, only to find it whittled down to $14 from the various fees of the employment agency.
While others languished, Mr. Shepard learned how to pitch himself, and got hired by FastCompany, a moving outfit, doing brute physical work in which he had no experience, and for which he was not exactly suited. As a mover he endured injury, sickness, ridicule, and conflicts with colleagues. He also kept working and learned, as he put it, “to delay gratification” rather than reward himself with goodies. After only six months, Mr. Shepard was driving an automobile and had saved $2,514.36.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Responsibility to Protect, The Slavers
Refer back to the post on the responsibility to protect as you read about the horror of modern slavery, and consider how quickly you would vote to send troops in.
A Crime So Monstrous
By Logan Paul Gage
Monday, May 5, 2008, 6:37 AM
If when you think of slavery, you imagine a distant, bygone era, ponder this conversation:
Florin: That’s not a lot. For one night, I make two hundred Euros off her. . . . She’s very clean. A very nice girl—you won’t have any problems with her. Whatever you say, she will do.”
Skinner: Two thousand seems like a lot.
Florin: No, for two months that’s very inexpensive! The girl is very nice, she is not doing drugs. She is good at what she is doing.
Skinner: How about something else? A trade. A motorcycle—I can see that being about the value.
Florin: A car, maybe. Not a motorcycle. A good car.
Skinner: A Dacia? But only if I’m buying the girl for three months. And the car will come with 50,000 kilometers.
Florin: OK.
Skinner: Could I leave the country with her?
Florin: What if you leave me with my eyes in the sun? [a Gypsy expression for being stood up] I don’t know if you’d be back with her. I need a deposit. But I can get a Romanian passport for her.
Investigative reporter E. Benjamin Skinner recorded this conversation with Florin, a pimp in Bucharest. You can listen online, if you have the stomach. In his new book, A Crime So Monstrous: Face-to-Face with Modern-Day Slavery, Florin represents the worst of the worst: selling not only a sex slave but an abused, scared, suicidal girl with Down syndrome out of a sewage-infested store, caring little how much she is beaten and raped. All for less than $2,400.
Skinner’s eyes, though only thirty-two, have seen much. According to former assistant secretary of state Richard Holbrooke, Skinner is the first person to observe the sale of human beings on four continents. Skinner’s interest in slavery goes far back. As a boy in Wisconsin, he attended Quaker meetings where he reports learning as much about Harriet Tubman and William Lloyd Garrison as he did about Jesus.
A conversation with Walter Russell Mead prompted Skinner’s five-year exploration culminating in this book—at once a portrait of slavery today, a history of recent U.S. abolition efforts, and a critique of the antislavery lobby.
According to the State Department, more than 800,000 people (two-thirds are women and children) are trafficked across national borders, and millions within national borders, annually. But what does slavery mean today? Skinner insists upon the following tripartite definition: “A slave is a human being who is forced to work through fraud or threat of violence for no pay beyond subsistence.” Skinner first paints a portrait of modern slave experience, and along the way we hear some gruesome tales.
A Crime So Monstrous
By Logan Paul Gage
Monday, May 5, 2008, 6:37 AM
If when you think of slavery, you imagine a distant, bygone era, ponder this conversation:
Florin: That’s not a lot. For one night, I make two hundred Euros off her. . . . She’s very clean. A very nice girl—you won’t have any problems with her. Whatever you say, she will do.”
Skinner: Two thousand seems like a lot.
Florin: No, for two months that’s very inexpensive! The girl is very nice, she is not doing drugs. She is good at what she is doing.
Skinner: How about something else? A trade. A motorcycle—I can see that being about the value.
Florin: A car, maybe. Not a motorcycle. A good car.
Skinner: A Dacia? But only if I’m buying the girl for three months. And the car will come with 50,000 kilometers.
Florin: OK.
Skinner: Could I leave the country with her?
Florin: What if you leave me with my eyes in the sun? [a Gypsy expression for being stood up] I don’t know if you’d be back with her. I need a deposit. But I can get a Romanian passport for her.
Investigative reporter E. Benjamin Skinner recorded this conversation with Florin, a pimp in Bucharest. You can listen online, if you have the stomach. In his new book, A Crime So Monstrous: Face-to-Face with Modern-Day Slavery, Florin represents the worst of the worst: selling not only a sex slave but an abused, scared, suicidal girl with Down syndrome out of a sewage-infested store, caring little how much she is beaten and raped. All for less than $2,400.
Skinner’s eyes, though only thirty-two, have seen much. According to former assistant secretary of state Richard Holbrooke, Skinner is the first person to observe the sale of human beings on four continents. Skinner’s interest in slavery goes far back. As a boy in Wisconsin, he attended Quaker meetings where he reports learning as much about Harriet Tubman and William Lloyd Garrison as he did about Jesus.
A conversation with Walter Russell Mead prompted Skinner’s five-year exploration culminating in this book—at once a portrait of slavery today, a history of recent U.S. abolition efforts, and a critique of the antislavery lobby.
According to the State Department, more than 800,000 people (two-thirds are women and children) are trafficked across national borders, and millions within national borders, annually. But what does slavery mean today? Skinner insists upon the following tripartite definition: “A slave is a human being who is forced to work through fraud or threat of violence for no pay beyond subsistence.” Skinner first paints a portrait of modern slave experience, and along the way we hear some gruesome tales.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
