Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the humbling?
In a message dated 12/24/2002 4:54:47 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Of course the DP exists for the sole purpose of preventing such action -- i.e. for the purpose of preventing self-knowledge, in the sense defined above, among the general public. The DP is the chief center of reaction in the U.S. today. It was the DP in power that overhauled the telecom industry via the 1996 deregulation act (as well as implemented catastrophic energy and banking sector deregulation). Not only did the act result in economic disaster, but it also served as the catalyst for communication sector consolidation. More control by fewer media goliaths. Further license to restrict content and access to alternative knowledge. Nomi
Re: Re: Re: Re: the humbling?
In a message dated 12/23/2002 8:21:06 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: so why advertise the fact that business as usual continues and that the looting will not stop so long as there is something to loot. Kind of apropos of another song from Chicago, performed by the lawyer character - Razzle Dazzle 'em "...it's all a circus... ...give 'em the old flim flam flummox fool and fracture 'em how can they hear the truth above the roar? throw 'em a fake and a finagle they'll never know you're just a bagel razzle dazzle 'em and they'll beg you for more! ..." The thing is, I want to believe that the general public, armed with accurate information, is smarter than that. Nomi
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the humbling?
Nomi wrote: The thing is, I want to believe that the general public, armed with accurate information, is smarter than That. I think both general public and smartness are loose categories that hinder clarity of analysis. The general public, actually, does not exist, but is merely a label we give to the additive sum of millions of isolated individuals sitting in their living rooms reading the front page or watching the TV. The isolated individual _cannot_ be smart, and when such an individual _appears_ to be smart, as an individual, one will almost invariably discover a history, an ensemble of social relations, of _activity_, within which that smartness came into existence. Recently Michael Hoover submitted a collection of quotations from Alfred North Whitehead, among which was the following: We cannot think first and act afterward. From the moment of birth we are immersed in action, and can only fitfully guide it by taking thought. But the activity of the isolated individual (the sume of which make up the general public) is activity that precludes awareness of themselves -- by which I mean not psychological self-awareness (which doesn't and can't exist -- it is a figment of the humanist imgination) but awareness of his/her _place_ in the ensemble of social relations which constitute her/him. The key to finding a smarter general public is building activities which involve larger and larger numbers of that public in activities which differ enough from their ordinary activity to generate the taking thought (after the fact/act) which Whitehead speaks of. Of course the DP exists for the sole purpose of preventing such action -- i.e. for the purpose of preventing self-knowledge, in the sense defined above, among the general public. The DP is the chief center of reaction in the U.S. today. There is a fine letter in the January issue of _The Progressive_ which touches on this. It is not on their web site yet. The plane crash that killed Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone, his wife and daughters, and several others is a horrible tragedy fro their surviving family, friends and acquaintances. Although the desire to focus on the best qualities of someone whose loss one is grieving is understandable, I believe progressive politics are better served by a balanced, critical assessment of Wellstone's political career than by the avalanche of mostly uncritical eulogies over the past month, including your own (Editor's Note, December issue). By all accounts, Wellstone did a world of good as an activist professor at Carleton College, inspiring many students to incorporate activism and progressive politics into their own lives. Wellstone's shocking election to the Senate in 1990 on a shoestring campaign budget but with a huge pool of enthusiastic campaign volunteers demonstrated the power of grassroots activism in a way most of us had only dreamed about. His outspoken opposition to the Persian Gulf War and support for single-payer health care were also inspiring to many a progressive, including myself. But Wellstone went to Washington with an agenda of changing the system and the Democratic Party from within. Instead, the system changed him. During his last term in office, Wellstone voted for wars in Yugoslavia and Afghanistan, the Defense of Marriage Act, the USA Patriot Act, economic sanctions against Iraq, increases in the military budget, and Congressional resolutions exonerating Israel of any blame for violence in the Middle East. He failed to speak out against Bush's theft of the election or to support his African American Congressional colleagues' call for an investigation. He stopped being an outspoken advocate of single-payer health care. He was publicly critical of Ralph Nader's Presidential candidacy. Even his much-praised opposition to the looming war with Iraq was not based on principle. His public statements about the issue indicated that, rather than seeing the United States as the major threat to world peace as most progressives do, Wellstone shared his Congressional colleagues' view that Iraq was a significant threat that needed to be dealth with (i.e., attacked) militarily, just not unilaterally or unconstitutionally. To be sure, Wellstone continued to compile a mostly quite progressive voting record and to fight for consumers and workers -- within the framework he accepted. His political limitations serve to illustrate a very important lesson that Paul himself might ohave taught in his days at Carleton: Real change and real leadership do not come from Capitol Hill; they always have, and always will, come from the grassroots. Jeff Melton 2002 Green Party Congressional candidate Bloomington, Indiana In other words, Wellstone _began_ his career trying to develope the smartness of the general public, but like all good Democrats (and their dupes among progressives) he devoted the final years of his life to enhancing the stupidity of
Re: Re: Re: Re: the humbling?
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's rather astonishing, the mainstream media is gloating about Spitzer's 'hardball tactics' in 'bringing down the beast' before the end of the year. Like, the banks really wanted to continue the fine negotiation process into 2003. One of The NY Sunday Times' articles had a particularly offensive title 'How Wall Street was tamed.' Their editorials are worse. As that CBS poll indicates, there's a complete disconnect between the punishment (which doesn't extend beyond these rounding-error fines) and public sentiment - but it's being swept away to make room for a brand new year of 'corporate responsibility.' Nomi === As well as letting the William Lerach's and law firms that drive the securities litigation markets kick into second gear. http://www.law.com/special/professionals/corp_counsel/2002/who_represent s_americas_biggest_companies.shtml Ian
Re: Re: Re: Re: the humbling?
Hegel must be howling with laughter. Guiliani as tragedy, Spitzer as farce? Michael
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the humbling?
In a message dated 12/23/2002 1:54:25 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Guiliani as tragedy, Spitzer as farce So, who plays Spitzer in the movie about how the little guy beats the corporations in time for Christmas? Nomi
Re: Re: Re: Re: the humbling?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In a message dated 12/23/02 10:16:45 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There was an instant poll on the CBS MarketWatch site last Friday that asked readers whether they thought this settlement was severe enough on the banks, and 80% said no. That's not a scientific survey, of course, but I suspect it accurately reflects widespread investor dismay about the trivial penalties delivered here. But I haven't seen one word in the media about investors' disgust. ... there's a complete disconnect between the punishment (which doesn't extend beyond these rounding-error fines) and public sentiment - but it's being swept away to make room for a brand new year of 'corporate responsibility.' [Plus, there's apparently room for much mirth! There's nothing Americans enjoy more than a good joke at their own expense, or so says Slate in the following:] Is Enron Funny Yet? Heineken's jokey corporate-scandal ad By Rob Walker Posted Monday, December 23, 2002, at 11:39 AM PT Remember when the fall of Enron was going to go down as a historical inflection point that forever shattered our image of corporate America? Well, at least you remember Enronsome bad guys in suits, complex financial maneuvers, paper shredding, that sort of thing. Maybe you're even hanging on to your outrage. Meanwhile, however, there is evidence from the world of advertising that the zeitgeist has reduced business chicanery from Defining Issue of Our Time to mere punchline. In a recent spot from Heineken we peer through a high-rise window at an office holiday party, to the crooning of Dean Martin. Let it snow, let it snow, let it snow, sings Dino in his vaguely decadent but always seductive style, and indeed the white stuff seems to be coming down plenty thick outside. Slowly the camera tilts upward, toward the top floor. Oddly, that's where the snow seems to be coming from. Within, we find power-suited execs, madly snatching up papers from a fancy conference table and stuffing them into a shredder. Box after box of documentation is getting the treatment, resulting in wastebaskets full of confetti, which are promptly emptied out the window. It cascades out in little flakes, fluttering past the happy (and innocent?) workers below. While Martin warbles blithely on, titles emerge against a background of corporate-made flurries: To all of us who weren't naughty this year Happy Holidays. The Heineken logo appears briefly at the end. Now wait a minute. Isn't it risky to make light of corporate malfeasance? What about all those solid Americans who showed up back when there were eight or nine congressional committees meeting daily on this subject to complain that CEOs are overpaid and selfish villains? The answer is no, it's not risky. We've moved on. Last week the New York Times reported that former CSX honcho and Treasury secretary nominee John W. Snow will draw a pension based on 44 years of service, although he actually put in 25, and that his benefits will be based not just on his salary, but on his salary, bonus, and the value of the huge chunk of CSX stock he was awarded, meaning his former firm will pay him about $2.5 million a year for the rest of his life. As that piece noted in passing, this comes on top of a 69 percent pay hike between 1997 and 2002he was pulling down more than $10 million annually as of last yearin a period when CSX shares fell 53 percent, lagging the SP 500. Enrichment for mediocrity isn't criminal fraud, but it's certainly outrageous. So was there anger and wailing in the streets? No. It was a one-day story. So the Heineken ad is in perfect sync with general attitudes about corporate excess: Nowadays it's good for a chuckle. ... http://www.slate.msn.com/id/2075745/ Carl _ MSN 8 limited-time offer: Join now and get 3 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialupxAPID=42PS=47575PI=7324DI=7474SU= http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsgHL=1216hotmailtaglines_newmsn8ishere_3mf
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the humbling?
Michael Pollak wrote: Hegel must be howling with laughter. Guiliani as tragedy, Spitzer as farce? And/or Miiken as creator, Grubman as destroyer. Doug
