My old 2 cents…


In the poll I put up, about half of you did not want me to post.

I go back-and-forth in my own mind about how much to contribute to the blog, how much to join in discussions, and so on.  On the one hand, I think you have a right to know “where I am coming from,” especially since I think transparency is superior to trying to pretend we have “completely objective” viewpoints.   On the other, I can take many different positions on different business or political issues; moreover, I do not want you to think I am grading your political philosophy even when I agree or disagree with you.

So, there is not an ideal solution, I have found.  But I do appreciate your votes in the poll (it was 5-4 against, by the way).

I did post in the other class’ blog.

It may be “dated’ now, but here it is, “Dumb and Dumber.”

And, here is just an interesting piece about how rural-urban and gerry-mandering are structural features of our politics.  It includes this interesting map of counties shaded and sized by population and voting record.  It shows how there are more “blue’ votes concentrated in some areas, but how that doe not translate into votes due to the ways we draw congressional districts.

county by density

Advertisements

5 comments on “My old 2 cents…

    • Yeah, well, I agree. When you look at two senators/state with the kinds of massive differences in population by state now… like California has what, 38 million? And Wyoming, 516,000. So Wyoming now has 1/76th what California does.

      in 1790, Delaware had about 60,000 and Virginia maybe 1,000,000 (including non-voting slaves).

      In short, now we value the rights of “land” as states to representation way more than people.

  1. The blog topic this week made me wonder about the connection between one’s political ideology and one’s alliance to stakeholder and shareholder primacy. Found that there is a correlation between conservatism and shareholder primacy in one of the articles I cited in my white paper:

    More remotely, Tetlock (2000) linked political ideology, which is related to motivations (Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski, & Sulloway, 2003), to shareholder- versus stakeholder- oriented accountability systems. In a sample of mid-level U.S. managers, Tetlock found that political conservatism positively predicted a preference for a monist, shareholder-focused corporate philosophy and negatively for a pluralist, stakeholder-oriented philosophy.” (European corporate governance institute: http://tinyurl.com/kgknvd9)

    • I am not surprised, though I never researched it. Very interesting. Does this mean that Bucknell is promulgating a worldview more sympathetic to a “democratic socialism” than a “laissez-faire capitalism” when we have a course called “The Stakehodler Organization?”

      Such a finding would need more repetition before we can take it as a clear social fact as well.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s