
'Dirty Jobs' Mike Rowe Meets the Koch Brothers - rajeck
http://mikerowe.com/2016/09/otw-kochindustries/
======
daeken
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.

~~~
cthulha
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?

~~~
marklyon
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.

------
aaronbrethorst
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.

[1] [https://www.thenation.com/article/alec-exposed-koch-
connecti...](https://www.thenation.com/article/alec-exposed-koch-connection/)

[2] [https://www.thenation.com/article/hidden-history-alec-and-
pr...](https://www.thenation.com/article/hidden-history-alec-and-prison-
labor/)

~~~
themartorana
_" 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.

~~~
cperciva
_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.

~~~
cderwin
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?

~~~
acjohnson55
Why shouldn't prisoners get full compensation for their labor?

~~~
Tinyyy
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?

~~~
acjohnson55
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.

------
tptacek
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:

[http://mikerowe.com/2016/02/stopignoringskillsgap/](http://mikerowe.com/2016/02/stopignoringskillsgap/)

~~~
menssen
Maybe this should be an "Ask HN" post, but.

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?

~~~
Mz
Semi-informed guess: It was likely tagged by some moderator either for being
controversial or insubstantive or both.

------
tsomctl
"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.

------
mabbo
"The truth is, progress only happens when people find common ground and build
something on it."

Very wise words.

------
SCAQTony
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.

[http://hyperallergic.com/111730/posthumous-prognosis-for-
sup...](http://hyperallergic.com/111730/posthumous-prognosis-for-supposedly-
syphilitic-gauguin-via-his-teeth/)

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?

[http://www.nytimes.com/1997/08/15/business/hugo-boss-
acknowl...](http://www.nytimes.com/1997/08/15/business/hugo-boss-acknowledges-
link-to-nazi-regime.html)

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.

[http://www.openculture.com/2014/02/groucho-marx-and-t-s-
elio...](http://www.openculture.com/2014/02/groucho-marx-and-t-s-eliot-become-
unexpected-pen-pals.html)

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.

~~~
eatplayrove
That's not how it works though.

There is no harm in you liking Gaugin's paintings now, because he is dead, and
by liking a painting, you don't enable his pedophilia.

I will not judge Koch, but if you view him in a bad light, you have every
right to question Rowe, because Rowe and Koch enable each other.

------
Mz
_(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.

------
rajeck
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>

------
driverdan
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?

If the topic interests you I recommend learning about effective altruism:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_altruism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_altruism)

------
danblick
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.

------
aresant
[deleted]

~~~
Hondor
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.

------
mempko
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.

------
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.

~~~
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.

~~~
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.

