Hostile Takeovers of the Corporate Kind, a book review

I have been a fan of the more recent writing of Jon Katz, and I was curious to read some of his earlier writing. Sign Off: A Novel of Men and Work was published in 1991. It chronicles the hostile takeover of United States Broadcasting (USB), a fictitious television network, as seen through the eyes of Peter Herbert, the executive producer of a nationally syndicated morning news program. UBS is taken over by David Nab, a self proclaimed "condo king" who has made a fortune in real estate and wishes to have the prestige that goes with owning a television network. Herbert watches in horror as, in a few short months, Nab lays waste to the network news, as well as the careers, and indeed the lives of his longtime associates, always wondering when the ax will fall on him.

This was a really compelling read. As a lowly Midwestern schoolteacher who has never aspired to the kind of lifestyle that Katz describes, I experienced a kind of guilty pleasure in reading about these people. It was a little like reading a Kitty Kelly tell-all.

Beyond the story however, I think that Sign Off made some important points. If the slash-and -burn mentality that Katz describes is accurate -- and I have no reason to believe otherwise; he did a stint as executive producer of the CBS Morning News -- it speaks volumes to the miserable failure of the mainstream media to take on the corporate culture of American politics, which we saw flourish under the Bush Administration, and sadly continues under Obama.

The novel also underscores something that I have thought about a lot in the last couple of years, watching people I love -- mostly middle-aged men -- struggle with unemployment. I believe from the bottom of my heart that a covenant was broken with American workers, people who spent the better part of their adult lives working hard and paying into "the system" only to be discarded as if they were yesterday's garbage. If you haven't been there, let me tell you -- it shatters a person's sense of self like nothing else can and has enormous impact on family relationships as well.

Furthermore, I question whether when businesses say that they are "losing money" is it really a matter of having a smaller profit margin? I think, in many cases, yes, absolutely. When corporations "downsize" or "cut the fat" it is all about increasing the profits for the stockholders. Tell me, where in the Constitution does it say that stockholders have a right to make huge profits?

Reading Sign Off, I would almost say that Katz was prescient. What happened to television news has also happened in print media, and in fact has reached into almost every corner of our society. I suspect though, that he was just observing the beginning of the corporatization of the U.S. (and the world.) Michael Moore was certainly talking about it and Ralph Nader, of course.

It was also utterly fascinating to see the anatomy of a hostile takeover. It is a term I have heard plenty of times, but really only had the most superficial understanding of what it meant. It strikes me that, among the provisions of that most horrible No Child Left Behind legislation are the sanctions for "failing schools" that include "reconstituting" a school's staff. That's nothing more than a hostile takeover -- welcome to corporatized America. (Don't get me started on Obama and education. I can hardly write about it, I am so furious.)

Sign Off is a very well-written, illuminating, and entertaining book. After many years of writing memoir, Katz is once again returning to fiction. I am looking forward to it.

Recommended, but it might take some digging to find it. It's worth the search.

A Question

I am going to be deliberately provocative.

For the people who think that Ralph Nader didn't have any business running for president in 2000 because he didn't have a chance of winning, what do you think of Cindy Sheehan's campaign for Nancy Pelosi's seat? (That's assuming that you know Cindy is still running, since no media, mainstream or otherwise, is reporting on it.) Do you support "Impeachment Is Off the Table" Pelosi just because she is the incumbent and a democrat? Do you revile Cindy Sheehan as a "media whore?"

Why are progressives so quick to turn on their own? I find it disturbing ...

Let me make this clear. I am not campaigning for Nader. I am not necessarily planning to vote for him. I am appealing to people whom I know to be smart and caring, to examine what appears to me to be blind prejudice and misplaced anger.

Good Reading ...

One of my favorite bloggers, Enriched Geranium, has written an excellent and thoughtful post about Ralph Nader, and I urge you to get off the beaten track and go read it. And while you're there, listen to the song Impeach the Moron, on the sidebar.

(In the interest of full disclosure, OK, I admit that Enriched Geranium is my husband, and I'm doing some shameless promotion here. So humor me.)

I'll tell you, I am not particularly inspired by this election. I don't feel optimistic that it will bring about much significant change in terms of the war, for example. The entire system is so deeply flawed. I support Obama more than I do Clinton, and will in all likelihood vote democrat, unless it is clear that the democratic party candidate will win my state with or without me. But it is difficult to place a lot of faith in the very same people who have either not had the guts or the will to stand up to the Worst. President. Ever, Inc.

Back in 2004, against my better judgment (and maybe because he brought Bruce Springsteen to town -- how cool was that? Pretty dang cool!) I voted for Kerry. That ill feeling that so many of us had on the morning of Nov. 3 will stay with me for a long, long time. Not for the first time, we were betrayed by a politician. In 2006, we turned out in droves to vote and gave the democrats a decisive victory. We liberals are a little like Lucy, Charlie Brown, and the football, aren't we?

In short, I'm pig-bitin' mad at the democrats. And until we have viable parties beyond the dems and the rethugs, we're going to be trying to kick that damned football until the end of time (which may come sooner than we think.)

Where does Nader come in? Well, he is an excellent writer and a tireless advocate for the downtrodden (and more and more we're all in that category). Should he enter the political arena again? As far as I'm concerned, that's his choice, under the law of our land. And we all get to choose who we vote for. (Sort of. Of course, if you live in a state that has a later primary, you don't have much of a choice at all. And the populist message that was carried by Kucinich, Richardson, and Edwards has largely been sidelined.)

I don't care if you support Nader, or not. But if you're somebody who has held deep anger toward him since 2000, please read what Enriched Geranium has to say, maybe even go to Nader's website and read some of the thousands of essays he has posted. (I tell you, the man works all the time.) And if you are tempted to repeat the popular memes about him, ask yourself, "How do I know this? Is it really true?"

This election is showing us, if we didn't know it before, that the democrats are just as capable of Rovian tactics as the rethuglicans. We do not need to help the smear campaigns.