Meanwhile the Kochs have likely given around seven figures to ALEC[1], which has pushed aggressively for enhancing the laws[2] that Charles Koch is now, apparently, deeply opposed to.
Maybe it's a turn of heart, but I'm rather skeptical.
"ALEC has proven expertly capable of devising endless ways to help private corporations benefit from the country’s massive prison population."
Gross.
"That mass incarceration would create a huge captive workforce was anticipated long before the US prison population reached its peak—and at a time when the concept of “rehabilitation” was still considered part of the mission of prisons."
Are we finally admitting that that's no longer (never really was) a thing? Now maybe we can start to take responsibility for bolstering corporations that actively work to incarcerate people for profit?
How is this different than slavery? Oh, if they're paid $0.20/hr they're not slaves?
Edit: as pointed out below, the 13th Amendment says prisoners can be slaves. I hadn't considered it in that context.
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
Are we finally admitting that that's no longer (never really was) a thing?
"Never" would imply that it hadn't ever worked, which...I take your point if that's what you mean, but as for even attempting to implement rehabilitation as a part of incarceration, that drive ended via both the Left and Right in the mid-70s after Robert Martinson[0], a Freedom Rider, published an essay[1] based on his thesis critique of the state of rehabilitation in prison at the time[2]. This was reinterpreted into the "Nothing Works" doctrine by the media and politicians, which resulted in the concepts and uses of prison being turned completely punitive within 10 years.
Oh, if they're paid $0.20/hr they're not slaves?
Nope! It's if you're in prison it's not slavery[3].
How is this different than slavery? Oh, if they're paid $0.20/hr they're not slaves?
I think the relevant question is whether the labour is forced. My understanding is that prison workforces are comprised of inmates who request to take part.
And people who (from a legal perspective) chose to break the law. Why is it morally acceptable to hold criminals in prison but not to employ them (at will, from what I understand) for little compensation during that imprisonment? Is there such a big difference between imprisonment with no employment and imprisonment with under-employment?
It's not a bad question. For me, imprisoning somebody should be a last resort and something we strive to avoid at all costs. In that light, does then taking advantage of someone in a (literal) captive situation, with no recourse for being taken advantage of, fit in the same worldview?
While "voluntary", promising time reductions or other sentencing modifications for either participation directly or "good behavior" indirectly changes the meaning of "voluntary." Add the threat of solitary confinement or other unconscionable punishments for bad behavior (and capable of being used in a punitive or retaliatory fashion by guards and administrators) and "voluntary" becomes even less voluntary.
It's easy to dehumanize prisoners as "lawbreakers" or cast them as people who gave up freedom flippantly. For me, taking advantage of prisoners to bolster private corporate profits - no matter their crime - is not a justifiable thing.
What does full compensation mean? The public market rate? Or the prison market rate because the risks and negative aspects of hiring prisoners mean that the demand for prisoners is low?
That's debatable, but I'm seeing a 20 cent/hour rate being floated about in the comments, which strikes me as way below market, pretty much no matter how you slice it.
Thats a terrible example for your point because the alternative is you improve the odds of electing someone who is even more likely to bomb the middle east, and does not just support mass surveillance, but thinks we arent doing enough of it. The alternative thinks that we should be asking people to answer questions such as thwir religion to be able to enter the country.
Oh, and thinks that besides not bombing enough, the other problem is a lack of using nukes.
It seems to me that they just found common ground, like Charles Koch and Mike Rowe have. ALEC produces models for a huge number of laws, the vast majority with which the Koch brothers are politically aligned. To me it doesn't seem to be a stretch that the people who founded the Cato Institute and bankrolled the Libertarian Party would agree with a conservative legislative group on a whole bunch of issues, but not on prison sentencing reform.
Great article. Thank you. It says the Kochs are using criminal justice reform to gut corporate executive's criminal liability for environmental violations.
I've gained a massive, massive respect for Mike Rowe over the past 5-10 years. He works to make the world a better place through education and understanding, and this post is a perfect example of this. Kudos to him for speaking out and standing his ground, rather than crumbling to nonsensical public pressure.
> Kudos to him for speaking out and standing his ground
Come on. Koch is literally paying him. How is it brave to write a letter endorsing the person that is paying for you to run your charities? How is this not a paid endorsement?
1) Unless he was paid on the condition of posting this (which seems tremendously out of line with his character), this isn't a paid endorsement. That's the definition -- an endorsement for which one is paid -- and no amount of linguistic gymnastics will change that.
2) It's brave because the Koch brothers aren't the only people he cares about, whether for money or otherwise. Posts in support of "bad" figures run a risk of losing credibility, support, funding, and partnerships; I strongly doubt that the check to his foundation was large enough to compensate for that.
I don't think the public pressure is nonsensical: Koch may be doing the right thing in some areas and not others. Why does it have to be so black-and-white? Can't people raise issues that they genuinely believe to be bad for the country they live in?
Some people wear such narrow ideological blinders that they're incapable of comprehending that this week's subject of two minutes hate might not actually be the all-encompassing embodiment of evil they've been told. They label everything they encounter as good (generally, where "good" is on the side of agreeing with them) and bad (generally, where "bad" transgresses by deigning even remotely disagree with the "good"). That sort of approach silences thought, innovation, argument and compromise.
It's a sad state of affairs that serves only the leaders who utilize such simplistic division so that they can lock in votes with far less effort than is required to meaningfully solve real problems.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
>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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This is a great little piece, and I'm glad I saw it, and I wouldn't have seen it at all had it not been at the top of HN (despite the fact that most of what Mike Rowe writes somehow lands in my Fb feed), and I even agree with I think something like 98% of what it says.
But it still feels like an almost textbook example of what shouldn't be on the front page of HN.
Something Mike Rowe writes about the importance of the skilled trades, how they work, what the market for those people is like? Sure!
But this piece is really just about politics and current events. In this case: politics I don't find very challenging (despite being a Democrat). But still: it's only interesting if you know who the Koch Brothers are and what their role in US politics tends to be.
It would be neat if when things like this came up and got stuck to the front page, they could be replaced with something more important the same person wrote. Here, for example: same form, same author, basically the same content, without the horse-race political hook:
I would argue that this post sets a great example for businesspeople. Sometimes in business you're going to come across someone with a strong reputation -- negative or positive -- and being able to understand them is important. So often we look at a reputation and base our actions and decisions on that, which I believe is inherently flawed.
We're all better off when different people can come together, understand each other, and work to make the world better, even if that's in a small way. So I think this is a great example of an HN post.
We'll see how much of the thread is about the skilled trades and how much of it is about the Koch Brothers role in horse-race US politics, and then we'll revisit.
I don't think that the direction of the discussion necessarily imbues the value of an HN post. I also don't think that the skilled trades themselves were the focus of the post; rather, the focus was on what the Koch Brothers did for his foundation, and how it contrasts with their reputation.
As a non-American, I found this interesting. Pretty much the only thing I hear about the Kochs here in Canada is "evil oil tycoons".
And I think the underlying message of "your opponents aren't literally devils incarnate" could do with being repeated a bit more often -- not just here but in every online forum.
I too agree that this post deserves to be on front page on HN.
I am an Indian. The first time I came to know about Koch brother when I watched "News Room" show. In which they where depicted as nothing but evil business men.
After reading this post, do I think they are kind hearted, good-doing business men? Not exactly. But it intrigue me to read more about their works rather than assuming they are selfish minded, evil business men.
This post appears to have disappeared from the front page (and the several following pages), despite its far higher upvote/recency combination than most other front page stories.
Is there a way to see some kind of record of the moderation decision, or flagging algorithm, that caused this to happen?
When I think of the Koch brothers, I think of their support for the Mercatus Center, which is associated with a bunch of (libertarian-leaning) economists I respect and frequently learn from.
> On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting.
And
> Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate for the site. If you think a story is spam or off-topic, flag it by clicking on its 'flag' link.
"But I was most surprised by his commitment to reinvigorate the skilled trades."
Why is he surprised? Koch Industries relies extensively on skilled laborers. Wikipedia lists Koch Industries' produces as "Asphalt, chemicals, commodities trading, energy, fibers, fertilizers, finance, minerals, natural gas, plastics, petroleum, pulp and paper, ranching". With the exception of commodities trading and finance, all of these require fabricators, electricians, pipe fitters, millwrights, machinists, heavy equipment operator, and a whole bunch of other trades. Even if they have enough employees, having more people trained in these trades allows them to hire better employees. From a more pessimistic point of view, having allows them to pay workers less.
Donating to politicians doesn't directly get laws passed. Voting for them does, and voting is only done by individuals no matter their wealth. If the people of Florida want solar, they shouldn't vote for that anti-solar governer. It's their democratic choice.
(Although I must say, this is the first time my proximity to the “wrong guy” has brought about the demise of a ten-year celebrity crush. That one stings.)
Eh, if it makes Mike Rowe feel any better, I crush on him and, off the top of my head, I can only think of a couple of other celebrities I crush on.
Glad to see him doing this kind of work and kudos to him for building bridges and getting shit done. To hell with the folks writing him hate mail over him collaborating with the "wrong" people in order to do good works.
Refreshing to read something about the need for labor and skills on HN instead of basic income.
This applies to HN because it's relevant to raising money and ethics of charity. Would you accept a funding round from a person or company who has done things you strongly disagree with?
Does the "good" you can do with that money outweigh the "bad" that person or company has done?
There are a lot of people out there who would be fantastic investors for you, provide great mentorship and guidance to your company along with the money but who are generally considered to be bad people. Do you take their money?
FWIW, I thought this would be of interest to hackers as I think Mike Rowe exemplifies the hacker ethos of crossing boundaries to get a new perspective on problems.
If all you do is sing from the same hymn sheet all the time, you're going to get the same song </strained analogy>
I guess that's one way to handle cognitive dissonance. Sorry Mike, you could have just ignored the hate mail and kept on truck'n. Or you could have said "Yeah, he is Satan, but I will take his money because I'm fine with ripping off the devil".
This is a fluff piece and you made it very clear you know who butters your bread.
My mother was a closet racist but I loved her very dearly. She donated to many charities, set up fund raisers for drug rehab centers and always picked up the check no matter how many people were at the table. I separated her bad judgement knowing damn well it was wrong and illogical and appreciated the good; I still continued to love her despite some ugly thoughts she had.
I like Gaugin's paintings even though he was a syphilic pedophile who left his family so he could have sex with teens in the south pacific... I separate the man from the work because it is good work. I would have had him put in jail if I could too.
Hugo Boss makes some really nice underwear and mens shirts but when Hugo Boss was alive he designed all the NAZI and SS uniforms. The original Hugo Boss is dead and is one suppose to "never forget" and punish those that came after him?
T.S. Elliot was anti semitic but he was pen pals with Groucho Marx (a jew) and had a photo of Groucho on his wall. Being friends with Groucho actually softened his points of view because Groucho stayed engaged.
Personality has many modules. In some areas within our personalities there is a bunch of lice. However, you support what you agree with and you aggressively question the bad.
My mother was a closet racist but I loved her very dearly. She donated to many charities, set up fund raisers for drug rehab centers and always picked up the check no matter how many people were at the table. I separated her bad judgement knowing damn well it was wrong and illogical and appreciated the good; I still continued to love her despite some ugly thoughts she had.
I like Gaugin's paintings even though he was a syphilic pedophile who left his family so he could have sex with teens in the south pacific... I separate the man from the work because it is good work. I would have had him put in jail if I could too.
Hugo Boss makes some really nice underwear and mens shirts but when Hugo Boss was alive he designed all the NAZI and SS uniforms. The original Hugo Boss is dead and is one suppose to "never forget" and punish those that came after him?
T.S. Elliot was anti semitic but he was pen pals with Groucho Marx (a jew) and had a photo of Groucho on his wall. Being friends with Groucho actually softened his points of view because Groucho stayed engaged.
Personality has many modules. In some areas within our personalities there is a bunch of lice. However, you support what you agree with and you aggressively question the bad.
Maybe it's a turn of heart, but I'm rather skeptical.
[1] https://www.thenation.com/article/alec-exposed-koch-connecti...
[2] https://www.thenation.com/article/hidden-history-alec-and-pr...
reply