I can hear it already: This is not real world music!!!

But wait, aren't the blues "world music?" As Link's resident expert, I say "yes, they are!"  Of course, that's me singing the song I wrote, so I have a vested interest in bending the category (maybe). But no less a luminary that Howard Mandel, President of the Jazz Journalists Association saw fit to carry this on HIS blog. So there. 

Here's the scoop on how this all happened:

Getting laid off because of a recession can really get to you, no matter how busy you make yourself. My partner Bruce Arnold had been writing songs for his new lap steel, and this one, called "Up the Spout" (a Midwestern depression term) just spoke to me. I wrote a melody and words and voilá.

Occupy Wall Street happened right around the time we were shooting the video, so I went down there and got shots of some of the more poignant people and signs... what can I say, they were more sympatico than I thought they'd be, and every one of them could have been you or me. Much has been said against the demonstration, but I for one am glad that someone is expressing the outrage that Americans should be feeling about being used and abused by a system that is badly out of kilter. Do I have the answers? As Mr. Mandel sagely pointed out in his blog: "Nobody should expect policy answers from a blues."

Lyrics to "Up the Spout"

It's a bitter wind, and it ain't no breeze
It shakes the windows and it takes the trees
And it blew me away
I love my work. It's what life's about-
that wind came and blew it all Up the Spout
Yes it blew me away.

Now here I sit... what shall I do
That wind left me here without a clue
Yes, it blew me a way
You were the boss, yet here we meet
Yeah, we both lost on that windy street
Yes it blew us both away

That wind don't care -- we're all just dust
and it' happening to all of us
It's blowing us away
Now with a little luck I'll make it through
But when that wind blows it's gonna come for you too
It's blowing -- It's blowing us away, Up the Spout
Blowing us Up the Spout

For more of Michal's original music videos, visit inter-muse.com.

"Ever since the Arab Spring, many people here have been pining for an American Autumn," says Charles Blow in the New York Times. "The closest we've gotten so far is Occupy Wall Street." For almost four weeks, Occupy Wall Street activists have gathered in Manhattan's financial district to protest corporate greed, corruption, and social and economic inequality, among other things. The movement's website states, "We Are the 99% that will no longer tolerate the greed and corruption of the 1%. We are using the revolutionary Arab Spring tactic to achieve our ends." 

Many disagree. Blow describes the protests as "a festival of frustrations, a collective venting session with little edge or urgency, highlighting just how far away downtown Manhattan is from Damascus." James Joyner at Outside the Beltway states, "What these movements have in common: frustrated youth loosely organized using social media …It's simply insulting to compare the two."

What can the American protestors learn from the more experienced "Arab Spring" protestors? In a Foreign Policy Magazine article entitled "From Tahrir Square to Wall Street," veteran Egyptian protestor Mosa'ab Elshamy offers his advice to the Occupy Wall Street activists on what makes a successful protest movement. Most importantly, Elshamy says, is that protestors have a unified platform. They must first agree on a set of simple and broad demands in order to attract a wide base of support, which is exactly what Occupy Wall Street lacks, according to most critics.  

Almost one month after the start of protests in New York City, the Occupy Wall Street movement has shown surprising staying power. The movement has spread to over 70 US cities and has been endorsed by several labor unions, celebrities, and politicians. But will it succeed in bringing accountability and equity to the US financial system, or will it fizzle as protestors are dispersed by a cold New York winter? 

(Photo: Occupy Wall Street protestor marches up Broadway in New York.  Mike Segar / Reuters)

NPR's Morning Edition did a major piece this morning about how the structure of publicly held companies prevents them from doing good in the world. The premise was the directors and officers of these companies have a legal duty to maximize shareholder profit, and therefore could be sued if they did things that impacted the profit, even if done for social good. As an ex-Wall Street corporate lawyer, I can tell you that this is utter nonsense. It reflects a lack of imagination on the part of the directors and officers (and their legal advisors) and replaces their real legal duty with the profit-oriented economic theory that has gripped our country since the late 1980s.

The truth is, officers and directors are legally required to maximize shareholder VALUE, not shareholder profit. That is or can be a very different proposition. "Value" is what the company defines it as. Profit is only part of the value equation, but there is no legal, ethical or moral requirement that it is the only definition of value. So if the highest value of a company is to serve the common good and be profitable (which we at Dean's Beans, among others, have proven is possible for almost twenty years), then when shareholders invest in that company, they will know what they are getting into. There is no shortage of investors looking to put their money where their greater values are, as proven by the billions consciously placed in socially responsible investments in the last decade.

What is required is not a new form of corporation. Rather, social entrepreneurs creating their new businesses for the common good simply have to write their foundation documents (the Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation) to enshrine their social mission into the very bones of their new company. They need to state clearly what the values of the company are that they are seeking to maximize. Thus it is a lack of imagination on the part of the company's lawyers and advisors, not a lack of legal possibility, that prevents new public companies from being organized for the common good, as they define it.

I will be happy to give free advice on this subject to any social entrepreneur who wants to insure that their new company can pursue its social mission without the fear of being sued by shareholders for not putting profit above everything else.

Right on the heels of the release of his latest documentary, Capitalism: A Love Story, Oscar-winning filmmaker Michael Moore stirs up controversy again on Link TV, taking on Obama, the media, and America's very financial underpinnings. Link's special features Michael Moore's standing-room only talk at the Commonwealth Club of California, as he gives insight into his new film while getting in his trademark jabs at the rich.

What makes his latest movie a love story, a "romantic documentary", as Moore calls it? "It is a love story. It's about the wealthy, who love their money. Except the movie has a twist - they not only love their money, but they love our money too. And they want all of it."

The critics have weighed in with fairly positive reviews of Capitalism: A Love Story, though Manohla Dargis in the New York Times takes Moore to task for his lack of "any real answers... which tends to be true of most socially minded directors in the commercial mainstream." And while some of Moore's cinematic decisions left Rolling Stone writer Matt Taibbi, blogging on the website True/Slant, a bit perplexed, he was nevertheless impressed that the film addressed "a taboo subject for every other major media outlet in the country": a society undergoing a "rapid peasant-ization."

Need Moore? Check out this interview with Blanche Shaheen (who has appeared recently as a host on Link TV), where the filmmaker reveals his premonition that the economic "house of cards was about to come down" even before the global economy officially tanked. And he pulls no punches for the capitalists, who he depicts as continually concocting new schemes to part working folk from their cash: "In capitalism, for the wealthy, there's no such thing as the word "enough". "Enough" is the dirtiest word in capitalism."

What do you think? Does Moore speak the truth, and does he have the answers? What do you think the repercussions will be after Moore's exposé of Wall Street and the capitalist system? Be sure to watch Link's special and let us know!