[ebbv]

This is a fluff piece trying to make an arch-conservative who is constantly pushing for deregulation and removal of environmental protections sound like a softy because he donated a bunch of money to Rowe's foundation. I have no doubt that the Koch brothers believe the agenda they push is for the best, but that's because they are self centered people.

If you dig below the surface of any of the seemingly not self interested stories told in this piece, they come from a place of total self interest. The Koch brothers employ former convicts because they know they can pay them low wages and work them hard in their factories because they're desperate for work. The Koch brothers push for deregulation of all industry, the hair braiding license is just a seemingly "common sense" deregulation story.

Mike Rowe has long been far too cozy for my comfort to large corporations and conservative politics in general. He throws Bill Maher in here to make himself sound "middle of the road" or like he has views across the spectrum, but in general Mr. Rowe tends to be on the conservative side of issues, which is why it's no surprise to me that he's buddies with the Koch brothers.

EDIT:

I should add that you can be a conservative and be a principled person who isn't selfish (obviously), but the Koch brothers are not that. You can also be a selfish liberal too, so I don't mean to imply that conservatives have a monopoly on being an asshole.

[EGreg]

I'm a liberal, but does it occur to you that your perception of this may be majorly colored by your own bias? If you had read a similar piece with conservatives replaced by progressives, who would feature in it? George Soros?

One can also say that your moral indignation is only surface-deep. For example:

"The Koch brothers employ former convicts because they know they can pay them low wages and work then hard in their factories because they're desperate for work."

First of all, they don't know when setting the initial salary who is a former convict and who isn't.

And secondly, what exactly are you proposing would be better for the former convicts than this? The ex-convicts choose to work there over the alternative employment options. It seems that their self-interest, such as it is, benefits the ex-convicts more than your non-existent alternative.

[ebbv]

Whoah buddy, I wasn't attacking you maybe you don't need to be so aggressive with me?

> First of all, they don't know when setting the initial salary who is a former convict and who isn't.

They don't have to know which individuals are. They put out there that they are willing/happy to hire ex-cons for these jobs and they will get them applying, and accepting lower salaries, lack of benefits, worse working conditions, no union, etc.

The whole "We don't ask people if they were convicted of a felony" is a total charade meant to seem like they are benevolent but in reality they know they are hiring convicts. Which people should do, but they take advantage of it.

> And secondly, what exactly are you proposing would be better for the former convicts than this?

First off, the idea that I'm under some onus to offer a better solution when I call something out as terrible is ridiculous. I don't have to make you a three michelin star meal to tell you Applebee's isn't very good.

Secondly, it's simple and obvious what I'm advocating in my original comment; paying people fair wages and providing them good working conditions and benefits and not taking advantage of their circumstance. Seems reasonable to me?

[EGreg]

I would say that an organization refusing employment on the basis of past convictions does them worse than an organization offering employment to those same people. They are free to decline it if they find "fair wages and good working conditions" at organizations which "are not taking advantage of their circumstance." It's strange to blame the self-interest of the one offering employment without offering an alternative solution.

Applebees may not be very good in your opinion, but it's better than starvation or scrounging for scraps.

That's the problem with simply expressing outrage and not offering any real solutions, while shooting down solutions that people in the situation actually choose, because that's what is available.

[ebbv]

By your logic then if exploitation wages and working conditions are all that's available it's OK because it's all that's available.

I'm saying it's not OK because exploitation is exploitation, and it's immoral. The Koch brothers should be required to pay fair wages and ethical working conditions.

I am providing an alternative scenario you are just refusing to acknowledge it I guess because I'm not a billionaire industrialist who can actually offer jobs to the people being taken advantage of?

[EGreg]

Exploitation is what you choose to call it. The reality is, in your own words, that the ex-convicts are "applying, and accepting lower salaries, lack of benefits, worse working conditions, no union, etc."

Instead of blaming everyone else for collectively causing these people to face worse conditions, you blame the company that offers them employment which they choose over those conditions.

It's illogical. Your blame should properly be on everyone else.

I'm not refusing to acknowledge your alternative scenario. Perhaps one day your alternative scenario will take place, but it will come about as more employers agree to hire ex-convicts, and compete to offer higher wages. But today, it sounds just as much of a solution as complaining that Utah's housing for the homeless isn't a five star hotel. Perhaps one day it will be -- it already is better than any housing was in the 19th century, with refrigerators and air conditioners. But as it is right now, your solution is pure demagoguery with no substance. How do you propose to get from here to there? And in the meantime, do you just deny the ex-convicts the option to take a job working for someone who you claim is exploiting them?

Similarly, would you deny everyone of Palestinian descent the option to get citizenship in the country they were born, eg Lebanon, because it doesn't fit a favored solution (eg waiting for Israel to offer them all a right of return)?

Similarly, would you tell individual African Americans they are powerless victims who need to wait until all institutional racism is solved before they each can do something about eg the 65% single parent household rate? Would you enable them to make a choice of what school to send their kids by allowing vouchers to be spent on private schools or would you deny them the choice and force them to send their kids to failing public schools that face no market discipline? Remember, even if the private schools are no better, you aren't any worse off by offering the parents that choice.

It is very possible to be a liberal and support dignity and increasing individual choice for consumers, employees, stateless refugees and populations facing systemic challenges on a large scale.

[ocdtrekkie]

Everybody believes what they push for is for the best. You believe what you're pushing for is for the best too! That's what people do.

But at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter if the Koch brothers are evil incarnate or not, if Mike Rowe got them to dump a big pile of money into a good cause. You can both keep your opinion of the Koch brothers, without lowering your opinion of Mike Rowe. Because all he did was get someone with a lot of money to put a lot of money in a good place.

[wallace_f]

>Everybody believes what they push for is for the best. You believe what you're pushing for is for the best too! That's what people do.

I don't understand. I've known people to say things such as, "we're not good people," or, "honestly, why would I care about that?" I knew someone who did an oil change in his truck on the top floor of a parking garage, and let the oil drain down the storm drain - I said, "are you aware how bad that is for the environment?" and he said "yea but why would I care about that? I don't care, it doesn't help me." But he knew it was wrong.

It seems like there are people who know the difference between right and wrong, and don't care. There are also people who don't know the difference between right and wrong, and do care. I wish all people knew the difference between right and wrong, and did care, but that's not my observation.

[ocdtrekkie]

The problem is, I think you're fundamentally willing to accept that the conservative point of view is "wrong" and the liberal point of view is "right", and therefore, you believe the Koch brothers don't know what is right or don't care. There are both appealing and disgusting points in both the conservative and liberal rhetorics, and we get nowhere if we assume that is the case.

People's right and wrong (and level of care) is going to differ for various reasons. The amount of money you have is going to affect your amount of care too: People at the Koch brothers' income level have nothing left to do but care about things they think are not as they should be, and try to influence them. There's a point where you're so rich, you sway that money-laden power around to do what you think needs to be done. You and I may not agree with the Koch brothers on what needs to be done, but it doesn't mean they're inherently "wrong". And on the opposite end, someone who can't afford a shop to do their oil change may not be bothered about the tiny effect they might have on the environment in that one instance.

And again, even if they are evil incarnate. If Mike Rowe can get them to spend money on something good, then why shouldn't he? So look at the cause Mike is championing here, and decide how you feel about it. If you think he's doing a good thing, why does it matter where he got the money for it?

[addicted]

The American conservative viewpoint on the environment is factually wrong.

This is not an opinion. To the extent society had constructed objective ways to determine facts, the existence of human driven global warming is as much of a fact as you can get.

Unfortunately, in American politics, conservatives often fall afoul of reality. And its not a coincidence. The conservative side is the one actively discrediting science and expertise, and promoting religion and gut feel as real sources of knowledge.

There is an actual asymmetry which exists between the American conservative and liberal movements, in terms of accepting reality, which has been deliberately generated over the past few decades.

Its really hard to ignore this, and unfortunately makes a lot of the both sides do it statements horribly wrong.

This isnt to say liberals are immune to ignoring reality and facts. But they are far less likely to do so because they arent driven by a movement deeicated to discrediting the best (albeit imperfect) sources and methods of determinkng knowledge that humans have derived yet.

[orangecat]

The American conservative viewpoint on the environment is factually wrong.

"The environment" is a large topic. The liberal viewpoints on nuclear power and GMOs are also factually wrong, and are arguably resulting in even more harm.

[jolux]

Nuclear power used to make sense before solar was as cheap as it is now and considering that it's still getting cheaper it doesn't make a lot of sense. See: http://crookedtimber.org/2016/07/20/nuclear-math-doesnt-add-...

[ebbv]

I made the point you made in my comment and then addressed why I think it's not good enough, so I'm not sure what your point is in rehashing it?

As far as why I think badly of Mr. Rowe, it's not because he took a donation from Charles Koch but that he's actually written a fluff piece about Charles Koch here. If he said "Hey the guy pushes some terrible stuff, but I took his money and put it to good use." I'd say fair enough. But he's saying "Hey Charles Koch isn't a bad guy." which is baloney.

[cperciva]

It's possible that this was a well-crafted fluff piece, but it seems far more likely that Mike Rowe is being honest and he wrote it in response to the vitriolic messages he received.

[ocdtrekkie]

I didn't get the impression so much that "Mike Rowe thinks Charles Koch is all around swell", but more "Mike Rowe found some points of commonality with Charles Koch and is perfectly fine working with him on those common goals". And of course, it seems he got pelted at with enough messages about how horrible he is for associating with Koch, that he clearly saw fit to explain.

[orangecat]

But he's saying "Hey Charles Koch isn't a bad guy." which is baloney.

It really isn't. The Kochs are libertarians who genuinely believe that smaller and less intrusive government would benefit everyone. You can disagree with that theory, and you may even be correct, but it's not obviously stupid or evil.

(If your response is "they're climate change deniers", see https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/20.... There's still plenty you'll disagree with, but if anything they're to the left of the average conservative).