For the second time in about as many weeks the other day I felt an almost overwhelming sense of relief listening to a public servant – rather than a totally unaccountable celebrity or pundit – address the country, uninterrupted.

On Choice

I believe our representatives’ current decision – whether to bake – at least for the foreseeable future – publicly-traded companies’ revenues into the very design of our system of governance – taking a cut of profits often made in extractive, exploitative, and immoral ways in order to fund badly needed social programs – is both a compelling and a consequential one.

One of our Union’s defining boundaries since defeating the confederacy has been a refusal to allow human rights violations, however profitable, to fund our country. Of course, modern-day corporations’ human rights violations do not approach the severity of the confederacy’s, and the question of degree matters a great deal. It is despite this clear distinction that I feel a recognition of what at least appears to be a tendency of publicly-traded corporations to short-change human rights in pursuit of short-term profits (glittery commercials implying otherwise aside) is necessary.

On Fuel Cells

Every one of the proposed social impact investments currently under consideration as a package at the national level sounds worthy to say the very least, and it almost impossible not to support. I simply wonder, even while the American people become what are essentially shareholders in our nation’s most profitable corporations, and especially in consideration of a piece of legislation otherwise focused so specifically on regulation enforcement for large corporations (and this is with regard to taxation), whether any steps can be taken to underscore our insistence that we refuse to be funded by considerable and avoidable human rights violations sometimes internal to such organizations.

I believe absolutism to be harmful to effective negotiations. Just like we need energy now, we need capital now; and in many ways it makes all the sense in the world to source this from publicly-traded corporations – so long as a plan is in place either to hold them accountable for their behaviors in the area of human rights or to transition – even if it is over time – to another funding source. (While I do believe there could come a time when human nature has evolved to the point where accountability for corporations is less necessary, I do not believe we are there.)

On Inverters

Historically, the answer to a need for corporate accountability has been journalism. But, as I have written before, I wonder whether America is home to a meaningfully functional journalistic sector anymore.

President Biden’s Build Back Better plan, in forming what could be termed a sort of human chain of world leaders committed to preserving a collective standard around the world for corporate contributions, halts a so-called “race to the bottom” for those who would seek a haven from financial accountability and contribution-making. But one could argue that the journalism/marketing sector, which would otherwise be tasked with holding these organizations to account, has instead arguably joined them, forming a human chain of their own in resisting internal accountability in the arena of human rights even while doubling down on public relations productions.

If the present purpose of government with regard to corporations is to close the gap between appearance and reality with regard to finances, would not a purpose of the traditional journalism sector be to close the gap between appearance and reality with regard to human rights within those same corporations?

Whereas a more fully functional journalism sector would protect citizens from involuntary representation by corporate celebrity figureheads, for example (this is as every time such influence is bought, it seems, the movements celebrities have co-opted seem left maimed), the modern version seems to facilitate such unhelpful shorthand.

I continue to believe that for journalists to forsake their posts is to make individual citizens the differential gear, so to speak, mediating between corporations seeking to shirk their responsibilities in the area of human rights and a country that demands that they do the opposite.

Because I felt so silenced by those making such enormous amounts of money by claiming to represent the recent (and arguably ongoing) women’s movement, and because I had felt trapped in a terrible situation at CNN due largely to what I considered to be the influence of corporate celebrity culture on the Larry King Live department, it is unsettling for me to listen to celebrities pontificate.

Listening to an elected leader this weekend, at least in this case, felt soothing. Certainly I know I’m glad to give of my time, talents, and treasure in order to be a citizen of a country like the one described; and I believe many other people feel the same way. It simply seems to me that more is needed to make the vision and system outlined work. What would be required, I believe, is, some form of an accountable journalism apparatus. I believe failure to meet such a need would be to sacrifice the well-being of all the vulnerable among an entire generation of Americans working in corporations today, dealing a considerable blow to America’s middle class.