Inequality - Page 3 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

loquitur · 04-02-2008, 07:49 AM

consider as well that most of us don't have racial hangups and have better things to do with our time than try to figure out how to stick it to people who are different.

I also find it distressing, as well as intellectually dishonest, that many left-leaners will try to make every discussion about race even if it has nothing to do with race. We were discussing economics, host, not race. My argument has zero to do with anyone's skin color. And I resent it deeply that you are trying to make this into a racial thing. I would venture to say I probably have more people of different races, ethnicities and sexual orientations in my life than most people, and I don't appreciate the insinuation that if I don't agree with your view of things it makes me a racist.

host · 04-02-2008, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

Host, your problem is that you really think there is a conspiracy out there to keep people down. You keep insisting it's a "fact," and it's just not. There might be some structural issues in the economy that are worth discussing, but insisting, as you did, that economic research is invalid and not worth considering unless it addresses your white boys' club is just not a useful way to proceed. And it's pretty rich for you to claim offense after you tell me I should "stop it" because I don't sign on to your conspiracy theory.

Good luck with your options positions, host. Do you really think that if your trades pay off big-time the big bad white boys club will come and steal it from you? Or could it be that the only person wanting a cut of your winnings will be the government?

Don't wish me "luck", loquitur....this isn't about me....it's about the "ignorance is bliss", broad mentality in the US that you happen to exhibit "poster boy" tendencies for, that's all.....

The "blackest" state in the union is Mississippi, 37 percent of it's residents are black....the next "blackest" state has only a 31 percent black population.

http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comp...=2&sort=16&o=d

....and, the way you tell it, it's just a happy coincidence that Mississippi is blessed with this partisan piece of shit parasite, as it's governor, isn't it?

Quote:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aG1fHyzJA56A

Mississippi Governor's Associates Profit From Katrina Recovery

By Timothy J. Burger
More Photos/Details

Aug. 16 (Bloomberg) -- Many Mississippians have benefited from Governor Haley Barbour's efforts to rebuild the state's devastated Gulf Coast in the two years since Hurricane Katrina. The $15 billion or more in federal aid the former Republican national chairman attracted has reopened casinos and helped residents move to new or repaired homes.

Among the beneficiaries are Barbour's own family and friends, who have earned hundreds of thousands of dollars from hurricane-related business. A nephew, one of two who are lobbyists, saw his fees more than double in the year after his uncle appointed him to a special reconstruction panel. Federal Bureau of Investigation agents in June raided a company owned by the wife of a third nephew, which maintained federal emergency- management trailers.

Meanwhile, the governor's own former lobbying firm, which he says is still making payments to him, has represented at least four clients with business linked to the recovery.

No evidence has surfaced that Barbour violated the law; at the same time, the pattern that emerges from public records and interviews raises ``many red flags,'' said Ken Boehm, chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center, a watchdog group in Falls Church, Virginia, that investigates the investments of government officials. ``At the minimum, the public is entitled to a full explanation of the facts,'' he said.

Barbour, 59, who is running for re-election this year, turned down an interview request. His spokesman, Pete Smith, declined in an e-mail to answer questions.

Big-Name Clients

Mississippi records show that Henry and Austin Barbour, sons of Haley's older brother Jeppie, registered as state lobbyists soon after their uncle was elected in 2003. In January 2004, Henry, who managed the gubernatorial campaign, and Austin joined Capitol Resources LLC in Jackson, located less than a block from the governor's mansion, which represented such big- name clients as Lorillard Tobacco Co. and Northrop Grumman Ship Systems.

In July 2005, Capitol Resources signed on to represent Government Consultants Inc., a local firm that advises Mississippi and Louisiana on state bond issues. Deborah Phillips, president of Government Consultants, praises the work of Capitol Resources, saying Henry, 43, and Austin, 31, have ``good resources.'' Haley Barbour is ``naturally not going to be disinclined to help those boys when he can,'' said Ed Brunini Jr., the governor's lawyer.

Katrina struck the Gulf Coast on Aug. 29, 2005, flooding low-lying regions including the city of New Orleans, killing 1,330 people and causing an estimated $96 billion in damage in Mississippi and Louisiana.

Recovery and Renewal

After the storm, Haley Barbour formed the Governor's Commission on Recovery, Rebuilding and Renewal, appointing former Netscape Communications Corp. Chief Executive Officer James Barksdale as chairman and Henry Barbour as its unpaid executive director. The panel met from September through December of that year; in an e-mail, Henry Barbour says he took ``a leave of absence'' from lobbying while volunteering on the commission.

Government Consultants paid $65,000 for Henry Barbour's lobbying from July 2005 through 2006, a period that included his work on the governor's commission, state records show. Principals in the firm also gave at least $27,500 to Haley Barbour's re-election campaign in 2006; Henry Barbour is the campaign's treasurer.

Among the commission's recommendations was the sale of bonds to finance the Katrina recovery. According to state reports and figures provided by Government Consultants, the firm landed about $2.4 million in Mississippi bond fees in 2006, including at least $400,000 from Katrina-related issues. Its fees were up 3.3 percent from 2005, the first year Barbour lobbied for the company, and 125 percent from 2004, the year before it hired him.

Escalating Fees

All told, Henry Barbour's lobbying fees -- $150,000 in 2004, his uncle's first year in office -- rose to $183,000 in 2005, the year of the hurricane, and $379,000 last year.

In his e-mail, Henry Barbour said that ``I don't have any role with state bond issues in Mississippi.'' Government Consultants Vice President Steve Pittman said in an e-mail that most of the fees the company earns are awarded by cities and counties, and aren't controlled by the state of Mississippi.

Barbour said in his e-mail that he worked hard on the commission, which won a federal ``Gulf Guardian Award'' for its efforts. He said wanted ``to help position Mississippi for the best possible recovery.'' Having ``the same last name as Governor Barbour clearly puts a target on my back,'' he added. Barbour said Capitol Resources decided after the storm ``to not take any new, recovery-related clients.''

Engineering Firm

Last Oct. 18, Henry Barbour registered to lobby for Camp Dresser & McKee Inc., a Cambridge, Massachusetts-based engineering firm that had also been a client of his uncle's firm in Washington. A week later, seven CDM officials each gave the governor's re-election campaign $1,000.

One of the projects recommended by the governor's reconstruction commission was a $3 million study of water management systems in six Mississippi counties affected by Katrina. Camp Dresser and Waggoner Engineering, another client of Henry Barbour's firm, worked on that project. CDM paid Henry $15,000 for the final quarter of 2006, according to state lobbying records.

Officials at Waggoner didn't return calls, and a CDM spokeswoman wouldn't comment.

Another Relative

The FBI raid involved another relative of the governor, Rosemary Ramirez Barbour, who's married to Henry's and Austin's brother Charles, 44, a member of the Hinds County board of supervisors. Rosemary owns a Jackson company, Alcatec LLC; OMB Watch, a Washington organization that monitors federal spending, says the company has received almost $27 million in U.S. contracts to maintain trailers used by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the government's disaster-relief arm.

On June 21, FBI agents searched three Alcatec offices, seizing computers and documents as part of an investigation into what the warrant said was possible mail fraud. The company didn't respond to repeated requests for comment.

Brunini, Haley Barbour's lawyer, said in a telephone interview that the governor ``doesn't have any connection with Charles Barbour, and certainly not with his wife.'' Smith, the governor's spokesman, declined to comment.

It isn't just Barbour relatives who have found opportunities in Katrina-related work; lobbyists at the governor's former firm, Washington-based Barbour Griffith & Rogers LLC, have profited from Katrina, too.

Salvaging a Casino

On Feb. 9 of this year, the governor's two partners, Ed Rogers and Lanny Griffith, filed forms with the state of Mississippi disclosing lobbying they did last year for Leucadia National Corp., a New York-based buyout firm that acquired the Hard Rock Casino in Biloxi, which had been ravaged by Katrina just days before its scheduled grand opening.

The lobbyists used their personal addresses instead of the business office that still bears Barbour's name. They faxed the forms from a FedEx Kinko's store in Washington. Rogers, 48, said in an e-mail that he and Griffith, 56, used their personal addresses because Mississippi asks lobbyists to file as individuals. The state form asks for a ``physical address.'' Lobbyists such as Henry Barbour commonly use a business address.

Leucadia paid Rogers and Griffith $80,000 each, according to state filings. Casino president Joe Billhimer said he believes Rogers helped Leucadia win state approval of its liquor license. Barbour's chief of staff, Charlie Williams, said ``we encouraged'' the state Gaming Commission and alcoholic-beverage control division ``to expedite'' the Hard Rock's approval process, ``and they did.''

Rogers's Response

``Not going to talk about my client's work,'' Rogers said in a telephone interview. A Leucadia official didn't return phone calls seeking comment.

According to federal records, Barbour Griffith & Rogers also received $200,000 from USMP Group LLC, an Iuka, Mississippi, company incorporated five weeks after Katrina by an attorney in the Jackson office of Balch & Bingham, a Birmingham, Alabama, law firm where Rogers is of counsel.

USMP manager Billy Kidd said the company plans to produce concrete and open the largest U.S. Department of Transportation- grade stone quarry in Mississippi, which could be used in reconstruction.

Beer and Kleenex

Kidd said BGR arranged a meeting with officials of the Mississippi State Department of Transportation for the fledgling firm. Today, the USMP facility, in an industrial park owned by Tishomingo County, shows few signs of activity, county officials say. Kidd said telling USMP's story would take ``a case of beer and a box of Kleenex.''

It isn't exactly clear what ties Governor Barbour retains to the lobbying firm. While the governor was listed as president of Barbour Griffith & Rogers Inc. in Mississippi filings through March 6 of this year, Todd Eardensohn, the firm's chief financial officer, said this was an error he made when BGR converted to a limited liability company in 2004.

Unlike previous governors, Barbour hasn't released his income-tax returns. In January 2004, shortly after his inauguration, he told the Associated Press that ``it's plain to everybody that I have nothing to do with the firm,'' adding, ``They didn't give me a bunch of going-away cash.''

On an Aug. 6 call-in show on American Family Radio, Barbour said that ``they do pay me retirement. I don't want to act like they don't.'' His attorney, Brunini, said this could also be considered a buyout payment, and that a manager overseeing Barbour's assets may have made ``a deal to cash that out and invest it in some other way.''

`Nothing From the Firm'

Rogers said last week that Barbour ``gets nothing from the firm.'' The governor ``earns no income from the firm and does not participate in the firm's governance or operations,'' he said. On March 20, Rogers gave Barbour's re-election campaign $25,000 and Griffith gave $5,000.

Barbour has placed his personal holdings in a blind trust, a move critics say serves mostly to shield them from public and regulatory scrutiny. ``Governor Barbour's so-called `blind trust' has 20/20 vision,'' said Brad Pigott, a former Clinton administration U.S. attorney for the Mississippi district that includes Jackson. ``I don't know of a soul down here who believes Governor Barbour doesn't know what Governor Barbour owns or gets out of the Washington lobbying firm that still uses his name.''

The state's Democratic attorney general, Jim Hood, has told Barbour he ``must report'' the ``actual assets'' in his trust, according to a Jan. 29 letter from lawyer Brunini to the state Ethics Commission.

Brunini defended the use of blind trusts, telling the commission that while ``Mississippi has no formal statutory or regulatory procedure'' authorizing them, ``there is clearly no specific prohibition against their use.''

To contact the writer of this story: Timothy J. Burger in Washington at tburger2@bloomberg.net .
Last Updated: August 16, 2007 00:07 EDT

As you might have noticed, you astound me..... it's as if some of the most important sensitivities you could have, are switched OFF. That isn't the truly significant thing...the real problem is that you consider yourself to be a "moderate", and you are probably correct....and that is why a person so counter to the best interests of black Mississippians, i.e., to all Mississippians, could openly "operate" as that state's governor...."under the radar".

That could not happen if my POV was "middle of the road", could it, loquitur?
It is no more random a condition, that Barbour is governor of Mississippi, than that white caucasian males maintain a stranglehold on power and wealth, despite your opinion that training and education are the solution.

How many "rounds" do you want to limit this to? Can you post that there has been any measurable progress in disbursing the concentration of white power in Mississippi, a state that sent a black man to the US senate, 138 years ago, and has had to endure former GOP chairman, the corrupt republican caucasian male, Haley Barbour, as it's governor since 2004, despite (to spite) Mississippi's 37 percent black population?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

hold the fucking phone a second here.

I don't see the words for accepting and advocating status quo.

I also don't know WTF you are talking about in respect to Dr. King. I'd say you have more of your own guilt to assuage than try and tape that to my back.

I'm stating that almost 40 years ago, those Forbes 100 were clearly as you stated 100% white male. In those 40 years of changs, we've had spurts and sputters, but now those numbers have increased, and increase on a daily basis. They have increased because they are qualified and have achieved their way to their position.

Again, are you stating that because they are black they should just be invited to sit there? so thus Colin Powell and Condi Rice have done nothing but been invited to join the ranks because they are black?

A black US senator for Mississippi served in 1870, yet you posted this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

.......I recall in the 70s when those numbers were 0 minorities and 0 women.

are you expecting it to be radically different overnight?.......

It would have been wrong if you posted that sentence, in 1908......but it's 100 years later that you posted it....and you believe it, I am sure.

Could you ever imagine Dr. King, now, or at anytime, saying such a thing? It is offensive, to me, and to a lot of other people who know some history, I hope.

Cynthetiq · 04-02-2008, 08:08 AM

so wait a minute... again are you stating that the US Senator was not there because of ability or opportunity but installed as a puppet. Your posts insinuate that Condi Rice and Colin Powell were not there due to ability but because it shifted overnight.

host · 04-02-2008, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

so wait a minute... again are you stating that the US Senator was not there because of ability or opportunity but installed as a puppet. Your posts insinuate that Condi Rice and Colin Powell were not there due to ability but because it shifted overnight.

Huh???

loquitur · 04-02-2008, 08:55 AM

host, the issue is that you are noting a correspondence and then declaring it causal. Maybe Mississippi is a backwater, so there are limited opportunities there? Maybe it's a calcified social structure because it's not economically dynamic as opposed to vice versa? Also, I suspect that in areas where there is economic dynamism in Mississippi you'll also see much less racial disparity in economic well-being.

But Mississippi isn't the whole country. In the US as a whole, race-based economic disparities are decreasing, and have been for years. I would expect they will continue to decrease for a while until they level off.

host · 04-02-2008, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

host, the issue is that you are noting a correspondence and then declaring it causal. Maybe Mississippi is a backwater, so there are limited opportunities there? Maybe it's a calcified social structure because it's not economically dynamic as opposed to vice versa? Also, I suspect that in areas where there is economic dynamism in Mississippi you'll also see much less racial disparity in economic well-being.

But Mississippi isn't the whole country. In the US as a whole, race-based economic disparities are decreasing, and have been for years. I would expect they will continue to decrease for a while until they level off.

The facts show that the most powerful positions in the fortune 500 corps.,

Quote:

http://www.mqc.com/div_rscs_usa.html
Friday November 1, 2002

Microquest Study Finds:
Good old boys' network still rules corporate boards

By Gary Strauss, USA TODAY

A new report by research firm Microquest has found a surprising lack of progress in board of director appointments for women and minorities at America's largest companies.

....Faced with tougher recruiting tasks, more companies now use corporate headhunters to conduct board searches. But headhunters are able to make minority recruiting only so much easier.

Julie Daum, who heads recruiter Spencer Stuart's board diversity practice, says companies still rank active and former CEOs as top board candidates. Accounting scandals have also made CFOs hot prospects. But there are few minority CEOs and CFOs, further limiting board openings.

"It would be easy to trot out the same old cast of characters, the high-profile women, African-Americans and Hispanics who serve on multiple boards," Daum says. "But they are boarded out, and companies are no longer interested in meeting some kind of quota."...

and in the US senate and house are still ending up in the hands of white males to no lesser a degree than ten years ago, or 20 years ago.

There has been a concerted, official, open effort by the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caging_list">national republican party organization to "cage"</a>...work to minimize, via legal and illegal means, the number of racial minority voters, documented at least since 1980. In this decade that effort proved successful enough to <a href="http://www.epluribusmedia.org/features/2007/20070505_resurrecting_jim_crow.html">reverse the enforcement</a> of the Voting Rights Act by the voting rights enforcement section of Civil Rights enforcement division, of the US DOJ. I have posted more than a little documentation, in other threads, to support all of thes points.

So, it a problem in the whole country. The political manipulation part of it is intentional and well organized.

Cynthetiq · 04-02-2008, 09:17 AM

nvm. host, i'm trying to understand your position but you've made it so obtuse that you're speaking in a foreign language.

you're welcome to try again, but I'll probably just gloss over your response since I cannot understand what your point is in suddenly bringing up race since it wasn't your position of discussion from page 1.

host · 04-02-2008, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

nvm. host, i'm trying to understand your position but you've made it so obtuse that you're speaking in a foreign language.

you're welcome to try again, but I'll probably just gloss over your response since I cannot understand what your point is in suddenly bringing up race since it wasn't your position of discussion from page 1.

This was your post before this one:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

so wait a minute... again are you stating that the US Senator was not there because of ability or opportunity but installed as a puppet. Your posts insinuate that Condi Rice and Colin Powell were not there due to ability but because it shifted overnight.

If you refer to the US senator sent to DC by the 1870 Mississippi legislature, I had no intention of using his example as an example of a "puppet". In his day, there was no popular election of US Senators. They were elected by the voting of each state legislature. In 1870, black representation, due to resistance by former confederates to participate in "Yankee" directed politics, and because of laws enacted to penalize former confederates, was the highest it has been, before or since.

The point is that blacks in Mississippi have experienced a backwards slide in their quest to achieve representative political power, compared to their numbers, in Mississippi, since 1870.

I am not black, but I have an idea that Rice and Powell are not largely considered role models by other blacks. I do not perceive that either was appreciably successful in their Bush admin. roles. Can you describe the most impressive accomplishment of either of them at the State Dept., or in Rice's role as director of the NSA or as National Security advisor to the president?

Powell's noteworthy achievement was rising in rank to Chair the Joint Chiefs of the US military, but he also either was the man "on the ground" who carried out the assignment to cover up the My Lai massacre in Vietnam, or performed and incompetent inquiry, or both.

I think Rice and Powell are appreciated much more by the conservative community than by the black American community, a situation which can be applied to nearly every black person held in high regard by the conservative community.

Cynthetiq · 04-02-2008, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

This was your post before this one:

If you refer to the US senator sent to DC by the 1870 Mississippi legislature, I had no intention of using his example as an example of a "puppet". In his day, there was no popular election of US Senators. They were elected by the voting of each state legislature. In 1870, black representation, due to resistance by former confederates to participate in "Yankee" directed politics, and because of laws enacted to penalize former confederates, was the highest it has been, before or since.

The point is that blacks in Mississippi have experienced a backwards slide in their quest to achieve representative political power, compared to their numbers, in Mississippi, since 1870.

I am not black, but I have an idea that Rice and Powell are not largely considered role models by other blacks. I do not perceive that either was appreciably successful in their Bush admin. roles. Can you describe the most impressive accomplishment of either of them at the State Dept., or in Rice's role as director of the NSA or as National Security advisor to the president?

Powell's noteworthy achievement was rising in rank to Chair the Joint Chiefs of the US military, but he also either was the man "on the ground" who carried out the assignment to cover up the My Lai massacre in Vietnam, or performed and incompetent inquiry, or both.

I think Rice and Powell are appreciated much more by the conservative community than by the black American community, a situation which can be applied to nearly every black person held in high regard by the conservative community.

I cannot answer that any more than I can say what achievements Tom Delay or Henry Kissenger had. Getting to the role and having the responsibility in and of itself is an achievement. Something it seems like your not giving credit where credit is due.

So MS hasn't had another black senator, are there statistics that show that tens of hundreds have run and not been elected? What of the idea that the voter choice makes it what it is? There is nothing BARRING a black person from trying to attain that position.

What do you do to assuage your own guilt of making all this money off the white man in the market game? Do you tithe to the NAACP or the UNCF?

Or do you do just bully pulpit speaking out in internet forums?

as far as role models are concerned, as I walk about NYC it seems like Fifty Cent, PDiddy, and his kind are the role models that the black community seems to want and reward.

Those that are the stand ups, which you say are only good for the conservatives like Larry Elder and Bill Cosby don't seem to make much headway within their own community.

kangaeru · 04-02-2008, 10:11 AM

Taken from the quarterly literary magazine "N+1"

Quote:

Let's talk about legible faces. You know those short, brown-toned South-American immigrants that pick your fruit, slaughter your meat, and bus your tables? Would you--a respectable person with a middle-class upbringing--ever consider going on a date with one of them? It's a rude question, because it affects to inquire into what everyone gets to know at the cost of forever leaving it unspoken. But if you were to put your unspoken thoughts into words, they might sound like this:

Not only are these people busing the tables, slaughtering the meat, and picking the fruit, they are the descendants of the people who bused the tables, slaughtered the meat, and picked the fruit of the Aztecs and Incas. The Spanish colonizers slaughtered or mixed their blood with the princes, priests, scholars, artisans, warriors, and beautiful women of the indigenous Americas, leaving untouched a class of Morlocks bred for good-natured servility and thus now tailor-made to the demands of an increasingly feudal postindustrial America

Moral of the story is, in my mind, without a state of inequality there could be no ideal state of equality. Humans are NOT born equal to one another. We all have gifts and weaknesses, some of us more than others. So long as the capable and motivated exist, they will rise above the incapable and or unmotivated.

What we're seeing with inequality isn't some clandestine corporate plan to pad the pockets of top management, its a natural market reaction to the commoditization of what was formerly considered "skilled" labor simply because of the prerequisite of a university degree, something which used to be rare but nowadays is worth little more than a high school diploma.

Well guess what, the blue-collar workers of yester-year may wear white collars now, but instead of working on a physical product in the factory line they function as a tiny, interchangeable cog in a monolithic corporate machine.

The fact is that the American industrial monopoly of the post-WWII era, the rents of which allowed blue collar workers to be paid what they were for so many years, has disappeared. Nowadays you need a far more robust personal and professional skill set in order to command a top wage, because frankly someone just as smart as you in Inidia will do it for less.

The question that needs to be reconciled here is not whether capitalism is working--because it is, in its usual ruthless efficiency--but whether:

a) we want to transition to a hybrid capitalist-socialist state in which the strong subsidize the weak (see: obama, clinton)
AND
b) do we dare risk such a transition given that the rising stars of China and India will ruthlessly push efficiency as their highest priority and that we may well be hamstringing ourselves in the globalization race by doing A?

flstf · 04-02-2008, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

I have yet to hear an explanation of why simple inequality of income, in and of itself, is something we have to somehow "fix", when there are so many other unequal endowments people have that no one seems to be interested in fixing. Some people happen to be very good at making money. Other people, like me, are good at other things. So?

I think the reality and/or perception that the system is rigged is something that has to be fixed especially if it is believed by many to be a major reason for inequality of income. People are not happy when they think they are getting screwed regardless of income.

One example I can think of is a local farmer who owned some acreage outright since his parents squated it in the 1800s. The land was just sitting there unused and a group from the capital city came along and offered him $100,000 for it and he was happy to accept it. In a few months construction began on a freeway adjacent to the property and the value went up into the millions. The landowner died within a year, his son said he never got over being taken advantage of by the politically connected buyers who had inside information.

Politically connected and company officers and friends steal millions from our pension funds (via inside information stock trading, etc..) and get a slap on the wrist or sometimes a few months in a country club facility while many small time crooks do hard time.

Our polititians have no problem bailing out banks and mortgage companies whose officers make millions and then hem and haw about bailing out homeowners who can't make payments because it will send the wrong message. Not that I think they should do either but the perception of corruption is there.

Also the way our tax system is currently set up the poor and middle class pay a much higher percentage of their income to support the government than the wealthy. Now Washington is talking about raising taxes on the oil companies. Isn't it obvious that gasoline buyers will ultimately pay this?

I think if people really thought that there was equal opportunity without political corruption and manipulation by the wealthy then inequality of income would not be such a big deal. Unless it gets to the point where a small percentage acquire most of the wealth then eventually the majority will revolt.

loquitur · 04-02-2008, 12:07 PM

Well, my answer is to get the govt out of a lot of stuff it is in now. If you do that, political connections will matter a lot less. Less for government to do, less chance for corruption. Less government, less need for "access," so fewer campaign contributions. Slimming down government will have all sorts of salutary effects.

Cynthetiq · 04-02-2008, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

Well, my answer is to get the govt out of a lot of stuff it is in now. If you do that, political connections will matter a lot less. Less for government to do, less chance for corruption. Less government, less need for "access," so fewer campaign contributions. Slimming down government will have all sorts of salutary effects.

true and not true

as a member of the board of directors for the cooperative that I live within, there is inherent distrust and conspiracy theory that it's amazing. So long as there are people involved there will always be some sort of nepotism, favoritism, politics.

loquitur · 04-02-2008, 01:07 PM

"less" and "zero" are not synonyms, cynth. Like fleas, corruption and nepotism will always be with us to some degree. I just think we shouldn't set up structures to incubate them.

Cynthetiq · 04-02-2008, 01:50 PM

aww can't we just use a flea bomb to get rid of the fleas? and the politicos...

Ustwo · 04-02-2008, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

aww can't we just use a flea bomb to get rid of the fleas? and the politicos...

When the revolution comes my friend, when the revolution comes.....

loquitur · 04-15-2008, 07:43 AM

Will Wilkinson takes just two paragraphs to summarize my point that I took much longer to make:

Quote:

If perfect equality is achieved through expropriation, then one might be tempted to say that there is too little inequality, but the problem is really too much confiscation, too much abuse of illegitimate authority, too little respect for rights. Likewise, if high levels of inequality are generated by the predation of an elite class, as is the case in much of the world, one might be tempted to say that there is too much inequality, but the problem is really rampant criminality, of which inequality is a side-effect. If I burn down your house, the problem is not that housing inequality has increased. The problem is that I have burned down your house. And when scholars tell us that inequality tends to be negatively correlated with economic growth, they are telling us, in an oddly roundabout way, that theft and corruption are not the path to prosperity.

There is no “too much” inequality. If there is any injustice or wrongdoing, it is too much. You don’t have to wait until you observe inequality to start caring about them — as if the smoke was the problem with a house on fire. But if a pattern of incomes is the result of fair-dealing among free people acting within just institutions, then there can be little objection, except from those who make equality a pointless fetish. Poverty is bad, whether or not it is a consequence of injustice, whether or not it exists alongside wealth, and the fact that it is bad alone gives us sufficient reason to do something about it.

host · 04-15-2008, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

Will Wilkinson takes just two paragraphs to summarize my point that I took much longer to make:

What do you do when the corruption is this entrenched....institutionalized into the system. How can it be seperated...isolated from the results....huge wealth inquity...when you, loquitur, and Cato's "libetarian thinker", Will Wilkinson, build your world view on denial that it this is the fucking US "system"....and it has been that way since too far back to pin a date on it:
http://news.google.com/archivesearch...earch+Archives

Quote:

http://www.reuters.com/articlePrint?...39492520080411

Lehman makes move to turn unsold debt to cash: report
Fri Apr 11, 2008 6:27am EDT

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc (LEH.N: Quote, Profile, Research) repackaged unsold debt and used the Federal Reserve's new borrowing facility <h3>to convert loans that investors mostly rejected into cash to finance its business</h3>, the Wall Street Journal reported.

<h3>Translation: They manipulated the system to borrow against near worthless shit, to "test" whether it would work!!!!!!!!</h3>

According to the Journal, Lehman transferred $2.8 billion in loans that included some risky leveraged buyout debt into a new investment entity called Freedom.

Freedom then issued debt securities backed by the loans, and $2.26 billion of the securities got investment-grade credit rankings from Moody's and Standard & Poor's, according to the report.

The bank used some of those securities as collateral for a low-interest, short-term cash loan from the Federal Reserve, the Journal said, citing people familiar with the matter.

The move was meant as a test to see what the Federal Reserve would accept, and the size of the loan was not material, the Journal added, citing a person familiar with the matter.

Lehman representatives and the Federal Reserve could not be reached immediately for comment.

Conflict of interest?

Quote:

http://www.reuters.com/articlePrint?...46902620070830
Lehman hires Jeb Bush as private equity advisor
Thu Aug 30, 2007 5:36pm EDT

NEW YORK, Aug 30 (Reuters) - Lehman Brothers has hired Jeb Bush, brother of the President of the United States, as an advisor to its private equity business, a source familiar with the situation said.

Lehman hired another relative of U.S. President George W. Bush last year--George Walker, a second cousin, who heads up the bank's asset management business.

Jeb Bush is the former governor of Florida.

Lehman Brothers declined to comment.

Quote:

http://www.kansascity.com/news/nation/story/331905.html
War cost in Afghanistan, Iraq could go to $2.4 trillion in next decade
By LISA ZAGAROLI
McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON | The cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could total $2.4 trillion in the next decade, according to a nonpartisan budget analysis issued Wednesday.

The White House dismissed the figures from the Congressional Budget Office as hypothetical.

“We are on an unsustainable fiscal path, and something has to give,” CBO director Peter Orszag said in presenting the estimates to the House Budget Committee at the request of its chairman, Rep. John Spratt, a South Carolina Democrat.

Spratt said he wants to highlight the cost of the wars, particularly the one in Iraq, so the public and policymakers will understand the tradeoffs.

“The $2.4 trillion estimate is half of what it would take to keep Social Security solvent for 75 years. People can relate to that,” he said in an interview.

The budget office analysts looked at two war scenarios to calculate a cost beyond the $600 billion already spent, including $450 billion in Iraq alone. Including requested appropriations for fiscal 2008, the total cost is about $800 billion.

One scenario involved a troop withdrawal from 200,000 in 2008 to 30,000 in 2010, remaining at that level through 2017. That would cost an additional $570 billion, Orszag said.

The other scenario calculated the cost of leaving 75,000 troops in from 2013 to 2017 at $859 billion over spending through 2008.

For the first time, the Congressional Budget Office also included interest in its calculations, because the wars have essentially been paid for with federal borrowing. Interest payments on spending so far would total $415 billion. Under the first scenario, there would be an additional $175 billion in interest payments, and under the second scenario, $290 billion in debt service would be added.

Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the ranking Republican on the committee, said the estimates fail to show that as a percentage of gross domestic product, the nation is better equipped to pay for these conflicts than previous wars.....

...The Bush administration has declined to make long-term projections because “the war is ever-changing” and costs are difficult to predict, said Sean Kevelighan, press secretary for the White House budget office........

Quote:

http://www.kansas.com/611/story/370309.html

....ABC News, which broke the story Wednesday, reported that some of the principals understood the moral swamp into which they were wading.

"Why are we talking about this in the White House?" Ashcroft is quoted as saying at one meeting. "History will not judge this kindly."

Nor will history judge the American people kindly if we look the other way.

Quote:

http://baltimorechronicle.com/media3_oct01.shtml
Republican-controlled Carlyle Group poses serious Ethical Questions for Bush Presidents, but Baltimore Sun ignores it
by Alice Cherbonnier

<h2>AN IMPORTANT TENET of journalism is that you should always ask, “Who benefits?”</h2>

In the case of a war, the answers to this question become of paramount importance. Suppose, for example, that profits from military contracting were to go in the pockets of a former U.S. President whose son (and a presumed future heir) is now President? Suppose further that such profits escalate in times of conflict. Wouldn’t this be of concern to the public? Wouldn’t you expect the media to be all over such an important ethical (not to mention moral, and maybe legal) angle?

Though described by the Industry Standard as “the world’s largest private equity firm,” with over $12 billion under management, chances are readers haven’t ever heard of The Carlyle Group. Isn’t that a little odd, considering it is run by a veritable who's who of former Republican political leaders. Former Defense Secretary Frank Carlucci is Carlyle’s chairman and managing director (who, by the way, was college roommate of the current Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld). And that partners in this mammoth venture include former U.S. Secretary of State James A. Baker III, George Soros, Fred Malek (George H.W. Bush’s campaign manager, forced to resign when it was revealed he was Nixon’s “Jew counter”), and—presumably—George H.W. Bush?......

.........Not only have some newspapers and magazines brought The Carlyle Group out of the shadows it prefers, but this enterprise has attracted the attention of The Center for Public Integrity and Judicial Watch, both of which have concerns about the ethical propriety of having high-placed former government officials—trained at taxpayer expense, too—out there reaping over 20% to 40% a year by working their connections. You have to wonder if these former public servants are just simply greedy, or if they’re telling themselves they’re true patriots by doing behind-the-scenes cloak-and-dagger stuff.

This is a big story. We were wondering if, in the wake of current events, we were the only newspaper that was asking that question, “Who benefits?” And then we found that the Wall Street Journal was asking the right questions, too, and we were vastly relieved not to be left hanging out to dry. On Sept. 27, the WSJ published a “Special Report: Aftermath of Terror” with the headline “Bin Laden Family Could Profit From a Jump In Defense Spending Due to Ties to U.S. Bank.” The “bank” is actually The Carlyle Group (and by the way, we peons can’t invest in it, and it sure isn’t taking deposits from the general public). The lead sentence reads: “If the U.S. boosts defense spending in its quest to stop Osama bin Laden’s alleged terrorist activities, there may be one unexpected beneficiary: Mr. bin Laden’s family.” And, though the WSJ curiously did not mention this, another beneficiary may be George H.W. Bush’s family.

Quote:

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstra...AA0894D9404482
<b>Elder Bush in Big G.O.P. Cast Toiling for Top Equity Firm</b>
March 5, 2001, Monday
By LESLIE WAYNE (NYT); National Desk

During the presidential campaign last year, former President George Bush took time off from his son's race to call on Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia at a luxurious desert compound outside Riyadh to talk about American-Saudi business affairs.

Mr. Bush went as an ambassador of sorts, but not for his government. In the same way, Mr. Bush's secretary of state, James A. Baker III, recently met with a group of wealthy people at the elegant Lanesborough Hotel in London to explain the Florida vote count.

Traveling with the fanfare of dignitaries, Mr. Bush and Mr. Baker were using their extensive government contacts to further their business interests as representatives of the Carlyle Group, a $12 billion private equity firm based in Washington that has parlayed a roster of former top-level government officials, largely from the Bush and Reagan administrations, into a moneymaking machine.

In a new spin on Washington's revolving door between business and government, where lobbying by former officials is restricted but soliciting investments is not, Carlyle has upped the ante and taken the practice global. Mr. Bush and Mr. Baker were accompanied on their trips by former Prime Minister John Major of Britain, another of Carlyle's political stars. ....Private equity, which involves buying up companies in private deals and reselling them, is a high-end business open only to the

very rich. click to show

Carlyle has become the nation's 11th largest defense contractor, owning companies that make tanks, aircraft wings and a broad array of other military equipment. It also owns health care companies, real estate, Internet companies, a bottling company and even Le Figaro, the French newspaper...

Quote:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...50C0A9679C8B63
<h3> Eisenhower, Ignored</h3>

Published: March 8, 2001

To the Editor:

Re ''Elder Bush in Big G.O.P. Cast Toiling for Top Equity Firm'' (front page, March 5):

Eisenhower's warning to resist the influence of the military-industrial complex on our government was obviously in vain. The military-industrial complex as represented by the Carlyle Group, a private equity firm, involves not only a former secretary of state, James A. Baker III, and a former secretary of defense, Frank C. Carlucci, but even a former president, George Bush, and through him, our current president, George W. Bush. This is now our government.

PHILIP WALKER
Santa Barbara, Calif., March 5, 2001

Quote:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...n13963936/pg_8
Family ties; The Bin Ladens
Sunday Herald, The, Oct 7, 2001 by Home Affairs Editor Neil MacKay
<< Page 1 Continued from page 7.

...... The board of directors included members of the Shakarshi family, linked to a money-laundering scandal and drug-trafficking in Zurich. A member of the Shakarshi family was also a director of the SICO office in London. There have been allegations that the Zurich company was a CIA front used to finance Afghan resistance - in which bin Laden was a prime mover - during the Soviet occupation of the country. Yeslam bin Laden continues to maintain relations with the Shakarshis.

The bin Laden family - and Yeslam in particular - have long- standing links to Al Bilad, a London-Geneva company used as part of the negotiations over the Anglo-Saudi Al Yamama arms-for-oil agreement, which was worth (pounds) 21.5 billion. Present at the negotiations was the now disgraced former Tory minister Jonathan Aitken, sent by John Major to represent the UK. Major claims he has no connection to the bin Laden family, despite his links to them through his job as European chairman of the Carlyle Group. Mark Thatcher was also involved in the Al Yamama deal.

Major is not the only significant world leader to be dragged into this mess. The Carlyle Group also counts former US President George Bush senior among its team. The former president even met the bin Laden family in Jidda in November 1998.

Current President George W Bush is also tangentially linked to Osama. Bush's lifelong friend James Bath acted as a representative in Texas for Osama's older brother, Salem, between 1976 and 1988. Bath bought real estate for the family, including Houston Gulf Airport.

Other companies and organisations connected to the Binladin Group family business include General Electric - the most valuable US company - and Citigroup, the biggest US bank, as well as Motorola, Quaker, Nortel, Unilever, Cadbury Schweppes and the investment bank ABN Amro.....

Quote:

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0218,gray,34384,6.html
The Carlyle Connection
How the Pentagon Learned to Love the Weapon No One Wanted
by Geoffrey Gray
May 1 - 7, 2002

by Rob Nelson
Frank Carlucci never trained much as a salesman. The former CIA spook turned Reagan defense secretary has been working as chairman for the Carlyle Group, the nation's 11th largest military contractor, and for the last five years, he's been championing the the production of 482 Crusader armored vehicles, over $11.2 billion dollars' worth of self-propelled Howitzer firepower.

He might as well have been going door-to-door with vacuum cleaners. Nobody seemed to want the damn things. They were bulky, outdated, expensive. "It looks like it's too heavy; it's not lethal enough," Bush said during a 2000 campaign debate. "There's going to be a lot of programs that aren't going to fit into the strategic plan for a long-term change of our military."

What a difference a war can make.

Late this March, as part of the post-9-11 military buildup, Donald Rumsfeld gave United Defense, Carlyle's subsidiary, the full monty: over $470 million to continue development on the problem-riddled Crusaders, puzzling some military analysts.

.. "Influence is tough to measure, but it's certainly had a friend somewhere."..

Make that a very close friend. Two internal Defense Department documents—letters between Carlyle and Rumsfeld—recently made available to the Voice show the intimate relationship between the Bush administration and the Carlyle Group.

"Dear Don," reads the first note, dated February 15, 2001..

Quote:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/002009.php

09.25.03 -- 10:58PM
By Josh Marshall

...Let me introduce you to New Bridge Strategies, LLC. New Bridge is 'Helping to Rebuild a New Iraq' as their liner note says.

Here's the company's new blurb from their <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20030810105715/http://newbridgestrategies.com/index.asp">website ...</a>

New Bridge Strategies, LLC is a unique company that was created specifically with the aim of assisting clients to evaluate and take advantage of business opportunities in the Middle East following the conclusion of the U.S.-led war in Iraq. Its activities will seek to expedite the creation of free and fair markets and new economic growth in Iraq, consistent with the policies of the Bush Administration. The opportunities evolving in Iraq today are of such an unprecedented nature and scope that no other existing firm has the necessary skills and experience to be effective both in Washington, D.C. and on the ground in Iraq.

A 'unique company'? You could say that. Who's the Chairman and Director of New Bridge? That would be Joe M. Allbaugh, President Bush's longtime right-hand-man and until about six months ago his head of FEMA. Before that of course he was the president's chief of staff when he was governor of Texas and campaign manager for Bush-Cheney 2000.

Allbaugh was part of the president's so-called <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/teambush072399.htm">'Iron Triangle'</a> -- the other two being Karl Rove and Karen Hughes. And now Allbaugh's running an outfit that helps your company get the sweetest contracts in Iraq? That sound right to you? Think he'll have any special pull?....

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=9433
US: Neil Bush's Business Dealings
by Thomas Catan and Stephen Fidler, Financial Times
December 12th, 2003

....Today, Neil Bush's business partners have a new venture, in keeping with the times. <h3>New Bridge Strategies was set up this year to help companies secure contracts in Iraq following the war</h3>. Mr Howland is chairman and chief executive of the company, while <h3>Mr Daniel</h3> is a member of the advisory board.

The company briefly hit the headlines this autumn because of the impressive roster of Republican heavyweights on its board, most of whom are linked to one or other of the Bush administrations or to the family itself. The company's website has not been shy about advertising its contacts in both the Middle East and Washington.

"The opportunities evolving in Iraq today are of such an unprecedented nature and scope that no other existing firm has the necessary skills and experience to be effective both in Washington DC., and on the ground in Iraq," it said. That phrasing has since been changed.

The list of directors and advisory board members is indeed impressive. Joe Allbaugh, the chairman of the company, was head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) until March 2003 and before that, chief of staff for George W. Bush while he was Texas governor. As national manager for the Bush-Cheney election campaign in 2000, he was one side of the "Iron Triangle" of aides credited with propelling him into the presidency.

Ed Rogers, the company's vice-chairman and director, was a top aide to George H. W. Bush while he was in the White House. Lanny Griffith, another director, also worked in Mr Bush senior's government and on his election campaigns. Haley Barbour, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee who was elected last month as governor of Mississippi, was on the board of Milestone Merchant Partners, a Washington-based private equity fund affiliated with New Bridge, according to the New Bridge website.

A spokesman for Mr Barbour, who is also close to the Bush family, said he resigned from that position in February.

All three are partners at Barbour, Griffith & Rogers, a Republican lobbying firm in Washington, DC. The firm shares an office with New Bridge at 1275 Pennsylvannia Avenue, on the 10th floor.....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer
The Relatively Charmed Life Of Neil Bush
Despite Silverado and Voodoo, Fortune Still Smiles on the President's Brother

By Peter Carlson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, December 28, 2003; Page D01

Ah, it's nice to be Neil Bush...

... Meanwhile, back home in Texas, Bush serves as co-chairman of a company called Crest Investment. Crest, he revealed in the deposition, pays him $60,000 a year to provide "miscellaneous consulting services."

"Such as?" Brown asked.

"Such as answering phone calls when <h3>Jamal Daniel</h3>, the other co-chairman, called and asked for advice," Bush replied.

Ah, it's nice to be Neil Bush, who seems to be living the lifestyle immortalized in those famous Dire Straits lyrics: "Money for nothin' and chicks for free." ......

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/print...503/S00019.htm
Neil Bush & Crest - Another Profiteering Scheme

By Evelyn Pringle

Evelyn Pringle is a columnist for Independent Media TV and an investigative journalist focused on exposing government corruption.

----

Neil Bush, has a $60,000-a-year employment contract with a top adviser to a Washington-based consulting firm set up to help companies secure contracts in Iraq, according to the Nov 11, 2004 Financial Times.

Neil disclosed this employment during a divorce deposition on March 3, 2003. He testified that he was co-chairman of the Houston-based, Crest Investment Corporation, which invests in energy and other ventures, and said he received $15,000 every three months for a average 3 or 4 hours of work a week doing "miscellaneous consulting services." "Such as?" his ex-wife's Attorney asked, "Such as answering phone calls when Jamal Daniel, the other co-chairman, called and asked for advice," Neil answered.

<h3>Crest's co-chairman, Daniel, sits on the advisory board of New Bridge Strategies, a firm set up in March 2003, just in time to cash in on the Iraq reconstruction contracts, by a group of businessmen with close ties to the Bush family, </h3> and both Bush administrations. The firm's chairman is Joe Allbaugh, who was W's campaign director in the 2000, and who was appointed Director of FEMA once Bush took office.

In addition to paying him for "consulting" work, Crest has provided funding for Neil's educational software company Ignite! In fact, Daniel sometimes introduces himself as a founding backer of the company, and has persuaded the families of prominent leaders in the Middle East to invest in Ignite, according to the Dec 11, 2003 Financial Times.

Overall, Crest goes to great lengths to show Neil how much it values his membership on the team. For instance, when Neil got remarried in 2004, Daniel held a wedding reception at his home, and Crest arranged a 5-year rent-free cottage for Neil and his new bride in Kennebunkport, Maine, so they could spend time near Mom & Pop Bush whenever they wanted to.

Another Jackpot - Thanks To Brother W

As usual, during his deposition, Neil forgot to mention a few facts about his earnings potential with Crest. First of all, he didn't mention that he attached his signature to letters soliciting business for New Bridge in obtaining contracts in Iraq, and two, that he attached his name as a reference for an extremely lucrative proposal submitted by Crest to obtain a lease on a parcel of property located on the island of Quintana, Texas, that will result in payments of at least $2 million a year to Crest.

When W took office in 2001, he vowed to make it easier for companies to build coastline facilities to store liquefied natural gas (LNG), a cooled and condensed form of natural gas, shipped in from countries around the world.

That promise sent US companies scrambling to secure coastline property on which to build the LNG processing facilities. One company looking to enter the market was Crest. Although the firm had no experience whatsoever in LNG processing, it had a very influential asset, a co-chairman by the name of

Neil Bush. click to show

Quote:

Los Angeles Times
Sep 17, 2003.

THE NATION; Payments to Cheney Questioned; Deferred compensation to vice president from his former employer, Halliburton Co., stirs complaints from Senate Democrats.

Vice President Dick Cheney, a former CEO of Halliburton Co., has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the company since taking office while asserting he has no financial interest in the company, Senate Democrats said Tuesday.

The Democrats demanded to know why Cheney claimed to have cut ties with the oil services company, involved in a large no-bid contract for oil reconstruction work in Iraq, when he was still receiving large deferred salary payments.

Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) and Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) said the revelations reinforced the need for hearings about the no-bid contracts Halliburton received from the Bush administration.

"The vice president needs to explain how he reconciles the claim that he has 'no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind,' with the hundreds of thousands of dollars in deferred salary payments he receives from Halliburton," Daschle said in a statement.

On NBC's "Meet the Press" program on Sunday, Cheney, who was Halliburton's chief executive from 1995 to 2000, said he had severed all ties with the Houston-based company.

"I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had now for over three years," he said.

Cathie Martin, a Cheney spokeswoman, confirmed that the vice president has been receiving the deferred compensation payments from Halliburton, but she disputed that his statements on "Meet the Press" had been misleading.

Cheney had already earned the salary that was now being paid, Martin said, adding that once he became a nominee for vice president, he purchased an insurance policy to guarantee that the deferred salary would be paid to him whether or not Halliburton survived as a company.

"So he has no financial interest in the company," she said.

But Lautenberg said that Cheney's financial disclosure filings with the Office of Government Ethics listed $205,298 in deferred salary payments made to him by Halliburton in 2001, and another $162,393 in 2002. The filings indicated that he was scheduled to receive more payments in 2003, 2004 and 2005.

"In 2001 and 2002, Vice President Cheney was paid almost as much in salary from Halliburton as he made as vice president," Lautenberg said.

The U.S. vice president's salary is $198,600 a year.

The financial disclosure forms also said Cheney continued to hold 433,333 unexercised Halliburton stock options, with exercise prices below the company's current stock market price.

Cheney's spokeswoman said he had placed these options in a charitable trust, and no longer had control over them.

On "Meet the Press," Cheney also said he had no involvement in the awarding of government contracts to Halliburton.

"As vice president, I have absolutely no influence of, involvement of, knowledge of in any way, shape or form of contracts let by the Corps of Engineers or anybody else in the federal government," he said.

In March, Halliburton was granted, without competition, a contract by the Army Corps of Engineers to repair and restore Iraq's oil fields. The corps says the cost of this contract to taxpayers is about $1 billion.

Under a second military support contract, Halliburton's Kellogg Brown & Root unit has racked up over $1 billion in expenses in Iraq, according to the U.S. Army Field Support Command.

*******
E-Mail Links Cheney's Office, Contract Officials Say Only Involvement in Halliburton Deal Was Announcing It. By Robert O'Harrow Jr. ...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Jun1.html

<b>Halliburton Stock Chart....the Invasion of Iraq Began in March, 2003:</b>
<center><img src="http://chart.finance.yahoo.com/c/5y/h/hal"></center>

Quote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/internatio...325971,00.html

Bush special envoy embroiled in controversy over Iraq debt

Consortium plans to cash in as Baker asks countries to end £200bn burden

Read the documents

Naomi Klein
Wednesday October 13, 2004
The Guardian

President Bush's special envoy, James Baker, who has been trying to persuade the world to forgive Iraq's crushing debts, is simultaneously working for a commercial concern that is trying to recover money from Iraq, according to confidential documents.

Mr Baker's Carlyle Group is in a consortium secretly proposing to try to collect $27bn (£15bn) on behalf of Kuwait, one of Iraq's biggest creditors, by using high-level political influence. It claims Mr Baker will not benefit personally, but the consortium could make millions in fees, retainers and commission as a result.....

.....Kathleen Clark, a law professor at Washington University and a leading expert on government ethics and regulations, said this meant that Mr Baker was in a "classic conflict of interest".

"Baker is on two sides of this transaction: he is supposed to be representing the interests of the US, but he is also a senior counsellor at Carlyle, and Carlyle wants to get paid to help Kuwait recover its debts from Iraq."

She added: "Carlyle and the other companies are exploiting Baker's current position to try to land a deal with Kuwait that would undermine the interests of the US government.".....

Daddy Bush claimed in 2003 that he had severed his ties with Carlyle, but here is, still shilling for them, just last year:

Quote:

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/worl.../21/2003298492
Former US president lobbies China over Citigroup bid: report

AFP, SHANGHAI
Tuesday, Mar 21, 2006, Page 10

<b>Former US president George Bush has personally lobbied the Chinese government to back a Citigroup-led consortium's bid</b> to buy into Guangdong Development Bank (廣東發展銀行), state press reported yesterday.

"On my personal behalf, I vigorously ask the Chinese government to support the US companies' efforts to buy into Guangdong Development Bank," Bush said in a letter to China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

"I sincerely believe that the deal would be conducive to the overall development of the Sino-US relationship," the official 21st Century Business Herald quoted the letter as saying.

<b>The consortium led by US banking giant Citigroup has reportedly bid 24.1 billion yuan (US$3 billion) for an 85 percent stake in Guangdong Development Bank.

The Carlyle Group, a US venture capital firm with close links to Washington, is also part of the consortium</b>.

The Citigroup consortium's main rival is a French-led consortium headed by Societe Generale, which has reportedly offered 23.5 billion yuan for more than 80 percent of the troubled southern Chinese bank.

Societe Generale appears to have its own powerful supporters, with its head of international retail banking, Jean-Louis Mattei, saying last month that an unnamed French government-owned agency intended to become a minor shareholder.

Bush's letter was sent to the foreign affairs ministry at the end of January and passed on to the China Banking Regulatory Commission, a government agency with an important say in the deal.

It appeared to back speculation that state-to-state relations, as well as the merits of the individual bidders, could prove important in determining the winner.

Diplomacy and business strongly overlap in China, where the state owns most of the country's assets, including the nation's banks.

Quote:

http://archive.southcoasttoday.com/d...rld-nation.htm
Bush uncle benefits from war spending
By WALTER F. ROCHE JR. , Los Angeles Times

Date of Publication: March 22, 2006

WASHINGTON — As President Bush embarks on a new effort to shore up public support for the war in Iraq, an uncle of the chief executive is collecting $2.7 million in cash and stock from the recent sale of a company that profited from the war.
A report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission shows that William H.T. Bush collected a little less than $1.9 million in cash plus stock valued at more than $800,000 as a result of the sale of Engineered Support Systems Inc. to DRS Technologies of New Jersey.
The $1.7 billion deal closed Jan. 31. Both businesses have extensive military contracts.
The elder Bush was a director of Engineered Support Systems. Recent SEC filings show he was paid cash and DRS stock in exchange for shares and options he obtained as a director......

Less than four months after 9/11....9/11....on 9/11....I...blah...blah....blah :

Quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuliani_Partners#_note-4

Giuliani Partners LLC is a management consulting and <h3>security consulting business founded by former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani in January 2002.[1]</h3>

Structure

Rudy Giuliani is Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Giuliani Partners.[2] Many of the managing partners and executives of Giuliani Partners are former New York City officials, counsels, emergency services leaders, etc. from Giuliani's time as mayor.[3] There is a subsidiary of the partnership, Giuliani Security & Safety LLC (before 2005, Giuliani-Kerik), which focuses on security consulting, especially regarding buildings;[4] its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer is Pasquale J. D'Amuro, a former Assistant Director in Charge in the Federal Bureau of Investigation's New York office and an Inspector in Charge following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.[4][1] Other subsidiaries include Giuliani Safety & Security Asia and Giuliani Compliance Japan.[1]

Giuliani Partners' stated mission is "dedicated to helping leaders solve critical strategic issues, accelerate growth, and enhance the reputation and brand of their organizations in the context of strongly held values ... based on six fundamental principles: Integrity Optimism Courage Preparedness Communication Accountability."[5] "No client is ever approved or worked on without a full discussion with Rudy... We're cautious in the right sense of that term, in terms of who we work for. We always want to make sure it is a company that is doing the right thing, that we're proud to represent," according to Giuliani Partners’ senior managing partner, Michael D. Hess, former Corporation Counsel for New York City.[1]

The firm's headquarters are in an office overlooking Times Square in New York.[1]

The firm is privately held. Sources have placed Giuliani Partners' earnings at over $100 million in the five years through early 2007.[1] Another estimate shows it with annual revenues of $40 million and 55 employees.[6] Clients of Giuliani Partners are required to sign confidentiality agreements, so they do not comment about the work they get done or the amount that thay have paid for it.[1] Giuliani himself has refused to talk about his clients, the work he did for them, the compensation he received from them, or any details about the company.[1]

[edit] Controversies

Giuliani Partners has been categorized by various media outlets as a lobbying entity capitalizing on Giuliani's name recognition.[7][8]

Giuliani’s chosen partners at Giuliani Partners have included former FBI man D'Amuro, who admitted taking six non-evidentiary artifacts from Ground Zero as mementos, but against whom no action was taken by the FBI;[9] Alan Placa, a former Roman Catholic priest who was accused of covering up sexual abuse in the church; and Bernard Kerik, Giuliani's former police commissioner, who was later accused of having ties to organized crime[1] and left the firm in 2005.

One of Giuliani's clients during this time included an admitted drug smuggler and millionaire founder of companies that perform electronic information gathering (datamining) on individuals, Hank Asher, who according to a shareholder in the company, hired Giuliani for his "influence with the federal government to enable Mr. Asher to take an active role in Seisint as a chief executive officer despite the allegations about his drug dealing." Giuliani helped Asher's company get $12 million in government grants.[1] After Asher's past was publicly revealed, he resigned from the company; Giuliani defended him to newspapers without mentioning that Asher was a paying client.[1] After Asher's resignation, investors in the company, Seisint, looked into how much Giuliani Partners had been paid: $2 million a year in fees, a commission on sales of Seisint products, and 800,000 warrants for Seisint stock, which would prove valuable when Seisent was sold to Lexis Nexis for $775 million. One investor sued the board, claiming that Giuliani's contributions had not been worth the large amount paid.[1][10]....

http://us.ft.com/ftgateway/superpage...20071350556964

Giuliani Capital Advisors

On December 1, 2004 his consulting firm announced it purchased accounting firm Ernst & Young's investment banking unit. The new investment bank would be known as Giuliani Capital Advisors LLC and would advise companies on acquisitions, restructurings and other strategic issues. On March 5, 2007, as a consequence of his presidential campaign, Giuliani Capital Advisors was sold to Macquarie Group, an Australian financial group, for an amount that analysts said might approach $100 million.[12]

loquitur · 04-15-2008, 08:39 AM

but host, this thread isn't to discuss corruption, it's to discuss inequality. My point is that inequality in and of itself isn't objectionable. Other people feel differently and I wanted to know why. I think we all agree there is some degree of corruption everywhere, but that exists in every society. IIRC you started a thread about corruption and other stuff precisely because it was OT for this thread.

host · 04-15-2008, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

but host, this thread isn't to discuss corruption, it's to discuss inequality. My point is that inequality in and of itself isn't objectionable. Other people feel differently and I wanted to know why. I think we all agree there is some degree of corruption everywhere, but that exists in every society. IIRC you started a thread about corruption and other stuff precisely because it was OT for this thread.

sigh.....you just posted this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by will wilkinson

......There is no “too much” inequality. If there is any injustice or wrongdoing, it is too much. You don’t have to wait until you observe inequality to start caring about them — as if the smoke was the problem with a house on fire. But if a pattern of incomes is the result of fair-dealing among free people acting within just institutions, then there can be little objection, except from those who make equality a pointless fetish. Poverty is bad, <h3>whether or not it is a consequence of injustice, whether or not it exists alongside wealth, and the fact that it is bad alone gives us sufficient reason to do something about it.......</h3>

....as I said, you and will wilkinson try to separate the systemic corruption that dramatic wealth inequity is a result of, a product of, an offspring of.

I object vehemently every time you attempt to separate the two.

Cynthetiq · 04-15-2008, 09:30 AM

do i understand from your statement host that corruption and inequality are wrapped togethere like a DNA strand?

host · 04-15-2008, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

do i understand from your statement host that corruption and inequality are wrapped togethere like a DNA strand?

That was the main point on the research I shared about John McCain's decision to change his life.....give up his 22 year Naval career.....trade it in for a "no show" VP job at his "mobbed up" father-in-law's beer distributorship. That decision was the foundation for McCain initiating his second career as a federal elected official. The VP "job" gave him the opportunity to meet all he needed to, in his new home in the state of Arizona. Father-in-law Hensley was the protege of the wealthiest man in the state, Kemper Marley, who also happened to be the most powerful political and organized crime figure. Hensley himself became the 12th wealthiest Arizonan.

After meeting everyone in Hensley's rolodex (Hensley was known as the lobbying "king"), McCain's campaigns were bankrolled by....Hensley. Today, McCain enjoys a net worth estimated between $50 and $100 million, all of that money originated with Hensley's initial stake.....his proceeds from organized crime activity of the 40s and 50s....

It's an example of "the American Dream", Cynthetiq....some "do it" from the bottom up, like Hensley....some from the "middle up", like McCain....and some do it from the top down....squeezing suppliers, threatening local zoning officials and usurping eminent domain power in order to expand, using enormous clout to influence minimum wage, workplace safety and welfare enforcement.....even locking workers in the building, overnight, like Walmart.

The Bush family war profiteering speaks for itself....just follow the money!

Cynthetiq · 04-15-2008, 09:57 AM

and what about inequality created by an honest worker like you and me? or is the implication that some how we are also corrupt in some fashion?

loquitur · 04-15-2008, 09:59 AM

host, you can object, but there are plenty of honest rich people. And plenty of dishonest poor people. Inequality is not in lockstep with dishonesty.

All you have supplied to the contrary is some anecdotes. There are some dishonest people in every social class and every profession. However, your post does explain a lot of what is driving your positions. I think I understand better now where you are coming from.

Do you really believe it is not possible to be both well off and honest at the same time? And if it is, would you expect Democratic candidates to refuse campaign contributions from their rich supporters rather than taint themselves?

host · 04-15-2008, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

host, you can object, but there are plenty of honest rich people. And plenty of dishonest poor people. Inequality is not in lockstep with dishonesty.

All you have supplied to the contrary is some anecdotes. There are some dishonest people in every social class and every profession. However, your post does explain a lot of what is driving your positions. I think I understand better now where you are coming from.

Do you really believe it is not possible to be both well off and honest at the same time? And if it is, would you expect Democratic candidates to refuse campaign contributions from their rich supporters rather than taint themselves?

loquitur, do you remember "nannygate"...how it seemed impossible to find people to appoint to political positions who could pass a background check related to whether they complied with tax laws in their employment of domestic servants? The laws were intended to protect the employment compensation of the servants....ensuring that employer social security and unemployment insurance premiums were paid, taxes withheld and paid, workplace laws and insurance protection observed and afforded to servants, just like to any other worker.

Do you think anything has changed, since that illuminating little spectacle, 15 years ago? Do you think it was an isolated situation? Do you think any of the "back scratching" that goes on in your "world"....the "stuff" that I am not privy to....that only you can know about, is fair, equal....ethical?

To be clear....I'm not relating it to you personally....only asking you to consider what you are in a position to observe. Everytime anything happens for the benefit of someone who isn't clearly deserving....an appointment of less than the best possible choice for the job, in an open, level competition, a zoning variance that is "unusual", the offer of "I'll make a phone call".....don't you see that all of it culminates in the result?

There are only 4 black CEOs at the fortune 500 companies, as a result of all of it. There are 11 million undocumented "guest workers", as a result, too. Look at who the elected "leaders" are. Bush is "president", Bloomberg purchased your mayorlty slot.....

Cynthetiq · 04-15-2008, 10:20 AM

what I think loq is pointing out is the same for me.

what about the three of us, taken as context for this example, I state I'm an honest person. It appears that both you and loquiter are as well.

So where does that leave us in this picture you paint?

mixedmedia · 04-15-2008, 10:20 AM

Perhaps what host is getting at, is that an individual's honesty is perfunctory when they are benefitting from a system that is corrupt.

maybe...

Cynthetiq · 04-15-2008, 10:25 AM

that could be, but that's someone who is "corrupt" in some fashion or "corruptable".

so here you are as well mix, where does that leave the 4 of us honest people? does that imply we're somewhat corrupt with some sort of Original Sin because of our parents who gave us something above and beyond the immagrant worker?

mixedmedia · 04-15-2008, 10:27 AM

No, I don't think so.

I haven't really given it a lot of thought, though, just been following the conversation.

But I see truth in both sides.

loquitur · 04-15-2008, 06:33 PM

Actually, host, corruption and prosperity tend to be inversely related. The US may not be the least corrupt country (IIRC it's Finland, but I'd need to dig that study out) but it's fairly low on the list. Truly corrupt countries tend also to have mass poverty and low levels of economic development. (Ah, here we go - it is indeed Finland. Myanmar and Somalia are the most corrupt. Or try this one, which is similar.)

Also, you're collapsing a few different concepts together. As I read you, you're saying a few different things:

1. People who are rich got there through corruption or fraud. This one I think is demonstrably false as a gross statement. The Fortune 400 is not populated by the equivalent of mafia dons.

2. Being rich gives you good connections that help you get things done more easily than people who aren't rich. Partly true, but not exclusive to the rich. Union leaders, for example, or NGO leaders, also have good connections that they can call on, and sometimes they carry more weight than mere money. The NY state legislature is pretty much a wholly owned subsidiary of one of the unions (Local 1199).

3. People who are already rich sometimes do dishonest things. Yup. People who aren't rich also sometimes do dishonest things. People, rich or not, often do things they shouldn't do if they think they can get away with them.

You realize, of course, that because people are different in their talents and abilities there will always be economic inequality even if everyone was scrupulously honest. I find it curious that you seem to dispute that.

host · 04-16-2008, 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

Perhaps what host is getting at, is that an individual's honesty is perfunctory when they are benefitting from a system that is corrupt.

maybe...

I'm throwing the following out here for consideration.... inequity in the distribution of wealth and power (IMO, it's hard to differentiate between the two) is "accepted", and I don't think that the acceptance in the US is a natural condition. I suspect that it doesn't just happen to be that way, and it is intended that objection to the inequity....like mine, triggers a designed response that is not authored by those who express it. The response is designed to place the objector, "on the fringe"....a label for this is "oh!! he is on the "extreme left"!

Here goes....:

Quote:

http://www.caledonia.org.uk/hegemony.htm

Hegemony. This is the term used by the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci to describe how the domination of one class over others is achieved by a combination of political and ideological means. Although political force - coercion - is always important, the role of ideology in winning the consent of dominated classes may be even more significant. The balance between coercion and consent will vary from society to society, the latter being more important in capitalist societies.

For Gramsci, the state was the chief instrument of coercive force, the winning of consent being achieved by the institutions of civil society eg the family, the Church and the Trade Unions. Hence the more prominent is civil society, the more likely it is that hegemony will be achieved by ideological means.

Hegemony is unlikely ever to be complete. In contemporary capitalist societies, for example, <h3>the working class has a dual consciousness</h3>, partly determined by the ideology of the capitalist class and partly revolutionary, determined by their experience of capitalist society. For capitalist society to be overthrown, workers must first establish their own ideological supremacy derived from their revolutionary consciousness.

[The Penguin Dictionary of Sociology (1988)]

["If those in charge of our society - politicians, corporate executives, and owners of press and television - can dominate our ideas, they will be secure in their power. They will not need soldiers patrolling the streets. We will control ourselves."
[Howard Zinn, historian and author]

....In political thought the term is now as often used in the sense given to it by Gramsci, in which <h3>it denotes the ascendancy of a class, not only in the economic sphere, but through all social, political and ideological spheres, and its ability thereby to persuade other classes to see the world in terms favorable to its own ascendancy.</h3>

Gramsci advocated the construction of a rival hegemony, through the infiltration and transformation of those small-scale institutions by which class ascendancy, once achieved, is sustained. ....

...Drawing on writers such as Machiavelli and Pareto, Gramsci argues that a politically dominant class maintains its position not simply by force, or the threat of force, but also by consent. That is achieved by making compromises with various other social and political forces which are welded together and consent to a certain social order under the intellectual and moral leadership of the dominant class. This hegemony is produced and reproduced through a network of institutions, social relations, and ideas which are outside the direct political sphere.

Gramsci especially emphasized the role of intellectuals in the creation of hegemony. The result is one of the most important, if elusive, concepts in contemporary social theory.....

The question....

Quote:

http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=385
Spring 2004 »

Howard Zinn's History Lessons
By Michael Kazin

....But Zinn's big book is quite unworthy of such fame and influence. A People's History is bad history, albeit gilded with virtuous intentions. Zinn reduces the past to a Manichean fable and makes no serious attempt to address the biggest question a leftist can ask about U.S. history: <h3>why have most Americans accepted the legitimacy</h3> of the capitalist republic in which they live?.....

...an answer:

Quote:

http://www.sevenoaksmag.com/commentary/06_zinn.html
The importance of Howard Zinn
March 29, 2004
Dale McCartney

....There is an irony in a professional association of historians inviting a speaker who has spent a significant portion of his career hectoring other professional historians for their failure to engage with politics in any meaningful manner. Regardless of the irony, the topic is a perfect choice for such a speaker.......

....Not only has Zinn established himself as a legend because of his activism among historians, he is the author of the bible of radical American history - A People's History of the United States . A People's History has occasioned considerable comment ever since its publication in 1980, and with his appearance in Boston this weekend, a new collection of critiques has appeared.

The most prominent of these recent reviews was published in the online winter 2004 edition of Dissent magazine (www.dissentmagazine.org). Michael Kazin, himself a prominent labour historian, lashes out at Zinn and his masterwork, deriding it as "bad history, albeit gilded with virtuous intentions." Kazin reads Zinn's work as "better suited to a conspiracy-monger's website than a work of scholarship." His complaints come fast and furious, but they seem to boil down to one complaint formulated in two different ways. Kazin finds Zinn's work reductionist - that is, he complains that Zinn oversimplifies American history both politically and historically. <h3>A People's History , in Kazin's view, is a "painful narrative about ordinary folks who keep struggling to achieve equality, democracy and a tolerant society, yet somehow are always defeated by a tiny band of rulers whose wiles match their greed."</h3> For Kazin, this sort of narrative fails to account for the historical uniqueness of figures like George Washington or Thomas Jefferson, and doesn't do justice to the differing motivations of activists and rebels of the past. <h3>Kazin's head-shaking goes so far that he laments the book's enormous sales, suggesting that it has contributed to keeping "the left just where it is: on the margins of American political life."</h3>

Kazin's review itself oversimplifies the issue, as a careful reading of Zinn's work reveals that he offers a considerably nuanced vision of his subjects. Importantly, and this is the reason for Zinn's success, his subjects are the "ordinary folks," and not the Washingtons and Jeffersons of American history. Zinn's work is not academic history, although Zinn clearly has the breadth of knowledge only possible through a life of study. Instead, the book is a chronicle of ordinary folks, for ordinary folks. Kazin is right to suggest that Zinn has written a political document, as well as an historical one - where he's wrong is in assuming that these are not compatible. Kazin calls the book a polemic, and it's an accurate description. Zinn is not neglecting a more objective perspective on American history; he's rejecting it in favor of an openly political stance that reclaims the history of oppressed peoples, regardless of race or gender. His popularity is testament to both the appeal of such a reading of American history, and the desperate thirst of working class people, people of colour, women and the many other victims of modern society's ravages for a history in which they are at the centre. I would go so far as to argue that not only has Kazin underestimated the importance of this role for Zinn's book, but that the academic tradition of objectivity (read: liberalism that favors white men) has played a key role in marginalizing oppressed peoples and derailing social movements. Zinn's work is an important corrective to this destructive tradition in historical writing.
....In my own experience, the film has been enormously successful. In two summers working at a military museum on Vancouver Island , I learned that the Great Escape was a historical marker for many of our visitors. When, in my first summer there, a prisoner in the camp who had worked on building the tunnels donated his illustrated diary from the time to the museum, it became clear to me how truly significant the film was. It stood in as the primary way in which many people 'remembered' the war. People who had long forgotten the significance of the names Dieppe and Juno remembered details from the escape. The film was a powerful tool for us at the museum, because it was a great way to make the history we were trying to present immediately accessible.

Some historians, undoubtedly Kazin included, would find the power of the film, and Zinn's book, coupled with their inaccurate or political recounting of history, troubling. History has a powerful role in shaping society, though, and is more than a hunt for truth. This is not to say that history based on lies is of any value - but there is power in constructing narratives that celebrate themes of heroism or rebellion, especially when these are constructed so as to privilege the perspectives of rebels, resistors and those traditionally oppressed. Contrary to Kazin's suggestion, this sort of engagement, which Howard Zinn's body of work unflinchingly embraces, <h3>will not marginalize the Left. Instead, it provides the Left with a history that can be used both to understand past resistance and inspire future activism.</h3>

To sum it up, the popularity of Zinn and his book owes itself to this, from Gramsci:

Quote:

...the working class has a dual consciousness...

It needs to be brought out, even as the corporate media works against it's duality. The reception to Zinn's work indicates that that has not yet been accomplished. The resistance to my posted objection to inequity is stronger than I would expect, given the depth of the inequity, and so are the number of votes for republican candidates.

roachboy · 04-16-2008, 04:13 AM

hegemony: ideology: control of worldviews through the ability to shape categories and the logics that are available to combine them.

once upon a time, in the olden days of private ownership of large-scale firms, the bourgeoisie was a tiny discrete social group and as over against them in marx were the folk who sold their labor power for a wage. back in those days, it made sense to imagine a small and shrinking cadre of the wealthy and powerful whose wealth enabled them political and personal freedom, whose abilities to be politically and personally free presupposed a vast system of wage slavery. there are those who get to flower as human beings and there are those who sell their labor power, become interchangeable as commodity-bearers (labor power is a commodity) dehumanized, etc.

once upon a time, during the transition away from craft production, there was still an argument to be made that atomizing work, deskilling, repetition were all dehumanizing, and that a system of production geared around that generated problematic human costs, even as standardized goods were cheaper than non-standardized goods--but once upon a time it was not obvious that there was any demand or need for standardized goods--such demand was produced--and so it follows that in capitalism, demand follows supply at the point where those who mediate that relation are able to tell those who demand what they want. it is like this, it is always like this in capitalism, that demand follows supply once demand is told by those who mediate that relation what it is that they want.

supply follows demand an partial, almost upside down view of the world that generates the illusion of power residing with those whose primary social function is to select from amongst a narrow range of officially sanctioned consumer options, to desire within circumscribed limits, to think in particular ways and not others. hegemony lay not only in the creation of desire the creation of demand but also in the image that one has of how demand fits into a larger picture, one that presupposes a separation of the economic from other spheres and a host of other bourgeois mental ticks besides.

once upon a time industrial production was concentrated inside of nation-states so that firms, by accepting the nation-state as a natural boundary within which primary economic activity was undertaken and understood, necessary found themselves involved with questions of the social reproduction of the labor force--to operate they needed a stream of minimally skilled but ultimately interchangeable bodies to be subordinates of the machinery on the factory floor.
once upon a time, this obligation to concern itself with the reproduction of the labor force meant that a number of brakes obtained on rates of exploitation. of course there was in the old school terminology always an industrial reserve army, but now the industrial reserve army is the size of the planet. anything goes. the most blinkered an short-sighted form of capitalism run the show. its natural, like the weather.

those days are largely gone: the is no working class to speak of in the united states at this point, not in the old sense of the term. there are working-class people in the sociologically descriptive sense, but not so many in terms of the political sense, that which marx isolated through the notion of the proletariat, the class in and for itself. and there is a relatively large social group which owns the instruments of production through the holding of stock and other instruments. there are varying degrees of class awareness amongst this population. class position being vague, of course, all types of populist or identity-politics ideologies are eaten in these neighborhoods many folk are of the lumpenbourgeoisie. i like that term and haven't used it for a while. the sack of potatos that carried political shit for the holders of power, those nice reliable petit bourgeois reactionaries who act against their own objective interests because they'd rather pretend they were wealthy than look the fuck around....and there is an ideological context in which this is all understood as natural and necessary like the weather. hegemony is the ability to convince people that any number of particular political and economic choices that adversely affect populations way beyond the limits of the firm or industrial sector just happen like the weather. powerless we all are. such inequality of power is natural--some get to decide others react--some decide your fate, you watch tv. it's natural. like the weather.

since the current socio-economic order, call it neoliberalism call it globalization it hardly matters, is natural like the weather--no matter that this assumption is a pure function of hegemony, a demonstration of it, a confirmation--the extent to which this neutralizes thinking about the material fact of the existing order AS a system is a good index of the effects of hegemony--so here: there is inequality and there is inequality. there, in aristotle, it is natural. here, because everything is naturalized because those nice men on tv say so those nice people who write for the papers say so those nice photographs i look at tell me so that nice tv footage i see shows me so, there is inequality there was natural inequality in aristotle there is inequality now where i am told everything that happens is like the weather, they are the same so q.e.d.

mixedmedia · 04-16-2008, 04:57 AM

Yeah, that's what I meant.

host · 04-16-2008, 06:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

.....there are working-class people in the sociologically descriptive sense, but not so many in terms of the political sense, that which marx isolated through the notion of the proletariat, the class in and for itself. and there is a relatively large social group which owns the instruments of production through the holding of stock and other instruments. there are varying degrees of class awareness amongst this population. class position being vague, of course, all types of populist or identity-politics ideologies are eaten in these neighborhoods many folk are of the lumpenbourgeoisie. i like that term and haven't used it for a while. the sack of potatos that carried political shit for the holders of power, those nice reliable petit bourgeois reactionaries who act against their own objective interests because they'd rather pretend they were wealthy than look the fuck around....and there is an ideological context in which this is all understood as natural and necessary like the weather......

It's a feeling that weighs on you...a resignation that you are "cursed" by an awareness that does not afflict many. It probably was past time to "get with the program", just after "the June days"....:

Quote:

"I noticed that the soldiers of the line were the least eager of our troops. Memories of February appeared to have weaken and paralyze them. . .. <h3>Without any doubt the keenest were those very Mobile Guardsmen whose fidelity we had questioned so seriously." (Traugott, 44)

Quote:

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/rsc...la/mobile.html
Established during the Revolution of 1848, the Mobile Guard consisted of lower working class men policing their own provinces. The Mobile Guard was intended to take the revolutionaries off the streets and use their "revolutionary tendencies" for the regime's benefit. In doing so, the workers who joined the Mobile Guard proved their adeptness at political and social organization but did so by repressing the rebellions they once helped stir up.

The Creation of the Mobile Guard

"The foundering of all organized forces only left one means of safety: <h3>to draw from the masses themselves the elements of order and discipline; to contain, direct, and govern the people with the people.</h3> . . . Audacious to the point of temerity, impulsive, flirting with destruction, running to rebellion as to a recreation, deprived of work, wandering through the streets hunger-stricken, the children of Paris were a new element of turmoil. <h3>To assemble them, group them, clothe them, give them shelter and bread, all the while transforming them into an intelligent and devoted force was to accomplish an act at once political and humanitarian."</h3>

--Garnier Page's assessment of the Provisional Government's motives for the Mobile Guard

(Traugott, 36)

The quote above is an excellent example of how the government and the upper class viewed the lower working class, as children who could not organize themselves,who are "impulsive" and run "to rebellion as to a recreation." <h3>It was for this reason that the Mobile Guard was created: to try and take rebellion out of the revolutionary workers.</h3>

However, during the Revolution of 1848, beginning in February, <h3>the government noticed that "the people of Paris spontaneously assumed responsibility for the maintenance and order in the city." It troubled the government that the revolutionary crowd saw to the protection of property and, more importantly, would "also intervene in their own official debates" (Traugott, 35).
The Mobile Guard tried to solve three of the Provincial Governments biggest problems:</h3>

# By employing as many as 25,000 jobless Parisians, it hoped to solve the economic crisis.
# It wanted to neutralize the most volatile of the street population, who were still excited from the February victory.
# Finally, transforming the workers into a reliable army would help them in war abroad...

....Doubts of Mobile Guard

Although the Guard was a competent form of government force, doubts about their loyalty continued to arise. The Provisional Government focused on recruiting members from the youthful revolutionaries who fought at the February barricades. <h3>The men who once manned the barricades were now being trained how to repress the popular insurrections that they played a part in.</h3> For the Guardsmen were "a rather broadly based fighting force that, both among industrial and nonindustrial sectors, was essentially indistinguishable from the insurgents themselves. This led many to doubt the loyalty of the members of the Mobile Guard.

However, the Mobile Guard never showed true reasons to be considered untrustworthy. Throughout the Revolutionary months of 1848, <h3>"in every one of its innumerable confrontations with workers, it had remained unswervingly loyal to the regime in power"</h3> (Traugott, ).

* One member of the "regular" army commented on the enthusiasm of the Mobile Guardsmen during the June Days of the Revolution:

"I noticed that the soldiers of the line were the least eager of our troops. Memories of February appeared to have weaken and paralyze them. . .. <h3>Without any doubt the keenest were those very Mobile Guardsmen whose fidelity we had questioned so seriously."</h3> (Traugott, 44)

As Daniel Stern described in his book, Histoire de la Revolution de 1848, the Guardsmen appeared to enjoy the battles and combat them with excitment:

"The sound of the gunshots, the whistling of the bullets seemed to them a new game which brought them joy. The smoke, the smell of powder excited them. They charged at a run, climbed over crumbling paving stones, clung to every scrap of cover with marvelous agility . . . <h3>If the Mobile Guard had passed over to the insurrection, as was feared, it is virtually certain that victory would have passed with it." (391)</h3>

After the Revolution, and the insurrection in June, the Mobile Guardsmen was praised for its performance throughout the Revolution of 1848, and especially during the June Days. The workers displayed that they were not simple children, used to rebellion as recreation. <h3>But they were capable of military intelligence and loyalty to the authorities that employed them: the regime.</h3>

roachboy · 04-16-2008, 06:34 AM

Quote:

It's a feeling that weighs on you...a resignation that you are "cursed" by an awareness that does not afflict many.

at this particular moment in my 3-d life, you have no idea how true this is, and the number of directions it runs in. it is only matched by my recognition of parallel lacks in my awareness. it is difficult being in an unfamiliar world.

host · 04-16-2008, 06:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

at this particular moment in my 3-d life, you have no idea how true this is, and the number of directions it runs in. it is only matched by my recognition of parallel lacks in my awareness. it is difficult being in an unfamiliar world.

Perhaps an outing is overdue...may I suggest an afternoon trip to the zoo....just to take your mind of "things", however briefly?

<center><img src="http://www.eecs.tufts.edu/~mrisgin/sowa/HomoSapiens.jpg"></center>

loquitur · 04-16-2008, 04:57 PM

A vacation?
Oy.
I'd settle for just a good night's sleep.

host · 04-16-2008, 10:16 PM

I don't think an afternoon off is a vacation, loquitur, but it sounds like you would benefit from an afternoon nap.

Zinn describes the challenge facing the majority of us:

["If those in charge of our society - politicians, corporate executives, and owners of press and television - can dominate our ideas, they will be secure in their power. They will not need soldiers patrolling the streets. We will control ourselves."
[Howard Zinn, historian and author]

Glenn Greenwald gives us examples. The inequality is obvious. Who has the means to "get this done"? Who owns the bully pulpit that is the corporate media? Is it a coincidence that the "Op"...the feminizing and "reduction to ridiculous" of almost every democratic candidate keeps happening, keeps being the major theme, in every campaign since Adlai Stevenson?

Clipped from the Greenwald opinion piece below:

Quote:

...Here, "Principle X" = the Right's notion that our elections should be decided based on petty personality-based themes -- euphemistically known as, justified and glorified as, "character issues." <h5>Decrying that principle while simultaneously subjecting the Right to it</h5> is not "hypocritical" or "contradictory" but, instead, is a means -- the only means -- for undermining it. ...

....By all rights, John McCain -- leading proponent of one of the most unpopular wars ever and tied at the hip to one of the most unpopular administrations in modern American history -- <h3>should be 20 points behind in the polls, at least. But he isn't. He is typically tied or even sometimes ahead. Why? Because the Cult of Personality constructed around him -- just as was true for George Bush -- remains largely unchallenged, while the right-wing/media monster demolishes the personality and character of the Democratic candidates. .....</h3>

Only in Media World could an individual who grew up in a poor and/or single-parent home with purely self-made accomplishments (Obama, John Edwards) be an out-of-touch "elitist" while individuals who live in extravagant wealth earned by others (George W. Bush, McCain) be Regular Folk in touch with heartland lifestyles and values. As Atrios noted today, even Howie Kurtz <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100587.html/">understands the bizarre spectacle </a> of watching coddled media stars decree who is an "elitist" and who is in touch with Common Values:....

Quote:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...gah/index.html
Wednesday April 16, 2008 10:03 EDT

...We are a nation in or on the verge of an extreme recession, with growing economic insecurities, mired in an endless and savage occupation that is consuming our scarce resources and eroding almost completely every aspect of our national strength. We have been ruled for the last many years by a political faction that has embraced truly radical theories that have fundamentally transformed the type of government we have and the type of country we are.

But as we select the next President, what are the stories that are dominating our political discourse? The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza provided the answer just this week:

Critical mass has been reached. "Bitter" and "cling" will forever be tied to Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) in the same way that "Tuzla" and "the laugh" will always evoke Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) when a political junkie thinks of the 2008 Democratic race.
And the "bitter" drama merely replaced the "elitist-because-he-can't-bowl" storyline in the spotlight. As I noted the other day, this is just an exercise in reflexively filling in the gaps in the insipid personality-based script -- authored by the Right and amplified by their media partners -- that dominates every one of our elections, regardless of who the candidates are or what they do.

John Kerry's defining trait was that he windsurfed in effete tights. Al Gore's was that he invented the Internet, claimed credit for Love Story, and wore earth colors because Naomi Wolf told him to. Michael Dukakis' was that he looked like a geeky loser in a helmet and didn't seem to show enough manly rage when asked in a debate about a hypothetical case where his wife was raped and killed.

One of the prime propagators of this cliched and petty chatter, Maureen Dowd, wrote yet another column today re-hashing these same themes:.....

<h5>Behind closed doors in San Francisco, elitism’s epicenter, Barack Obama showed his elitism....</h5>

So Barack Obama now takes his place on the ignoble path tread by every other Democratic candidate before him: as an effete, elitist, out-of-touch loser -- just like Mike Dukakis and John Kerry, and just like Al Gore and (when she was leading in the polls) Hillary Clinton. Conversely, the GOP leaders are stalwart and amiable though heroic Men of the People.

Given that dynamic, Democrats have two choices and only two choices: (1) allow the Right to wield these themes unchallenged, in a one-sided manner, or (2) engage them just as aggressively and directly in order to neutralize the advantage they confer. The point is that having our elections decided primarily on substantive issues isn't an option, precisely because the Right and the shallow, slothful media ensure that petty personality controversies predominate. The only choice is to engage them or to ignore them, thereby allowing them to rage unchallenged....

...UPDATE: Oddly, a <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/16/elitism/index.html">CNN article today</a> actually summarizes these matters quite accurately:

Sen. Barack Obama is saddled with a potentially toxic image problem -- that he has an elitist attitude. . . .Branding a rival elitist is not new in politics. <h5>Republicans for years have successfully labeled Democratic presidential candidates as the liberal elite.</h5> Portraying their rivals as latte-sipping, sushi-eating insiders, Republicans have connected with some voters by arguing they understand the values important to the everyday person. .....

<h5>It's a small irony of this "out of touch" debate that upper-echelon journalists with wardrobe allowances or kids in fancy private schools get to pose as the folks who are in touch with the great American working class.</h5>
But that's how these themes work and what makes them so toxic. Aside from being painfully petty, they bear no relation to reality. After all, <h5>George Bush and Dick Cheney were the swaggering, strong, courageous, protective warriors and Vietnam-volunteering John Kerry and Al Gore were the weak-kneed, subversive, soft, effete, Chamberlain-like appeasers.</h5> The right-wing script is deployed regardless of the candidates and their true attributes.

Loquitur, do you see anything that Greenwald gets wrong, in your opinon? Can you defend or feel any confidence in a "system" that has resorted to maintaining the status quo....keeping the political power, the best that money can buy, as close to where it currently is, as is possible?

Can you see how someone with a skeptical and rejectionist view, can be as critical of it as some of us here are? What is it? Why do you defend this pathetic maipulation that results in a "self controlling" society making such absurd election choices, with so little REAL media coverage, or individual discussion of the issues that matter?

Can you consider that the repression is a psy-ops affair, one that only concentration of wealth and power, of the level we in the US "enjoy", can pull off? Are we hobbled by. or blessed with a media extravaganza that reliably makes one side look ridiculous to ensure that there is no actual examination of the "manly men" endorsed and promoted by that same media?

Can you consider that the whole "schtick" about "liberal media bias" is a smokescreen? Who does the media make out as ridiculous and "girly"? Who does it anoint with a swagger...a "leadership" image?

Reagan and George W. Bush are the most telling products of these psy-ops, and they are also the evidence of how fragile and shallow, what you and so many others so stalwartly defend really is....a political-economic system that is ridiculous!

ottopilot · 04-17-2008, 02:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Loquitur, do you see anything that Greenwald gets wrong, in your opinon? Can you defend or feel any confidence in a "system" that has resorted to maintaining the status quo....keeping the political power, the best that money can buy, as close to where it currently is, as is possible?

Can you see how someone with a skeptical and rejectionist view, can be as critical of it as some of us here are? What is it? Why do you defend this pathetic maipulation that results in a "self controlling" society making such absurd election choices, with so little REAL media coverage, or individual discussion of the issues that matter?

Can you consider that the repression is a psy-ops affair, one that only concentration of wealth and power, of the level we in the US "enjoy", can pull off? Are we hobbled by. or blessed with a media extravaganza that reliably makes one side look ridiculous to ensure that there is no actual examination of the "manly men" endorsed and promoted by that same media?

Can you consider that the whole "schtick" about "liberal media bias" is a smokescreen? Who does the media make out as ridiculous and "girly"? Who does it anoint with a swagger...a "leadership" image?

Reagan and George W. Bush are the most telling products of these psy-ops, and they are also the evidence of how fragile and shallow, what you and so many others so stalwartly defend really is....a political-economic system that is ridiculous!

This is one of your best laid out responses. I don't agree with most of your general conclusions regarding inequality, media bias and elitism, but I do agree with the notion of the preservation and possible manipulation of the status quo.

Perhaps to better understand your position, how would you suggest correcting problem? What needs to change?

loquitur · 04-17-2008, 04:16 AM

actually, the net is a pretty good democratizer. It has opened up opportunities for a lot of people who otherwise would not have come to public attention.

Take Glenn Greenwald, for example. I actually litigated against him, as it happens (years ago). If not for the net he might still have his small law firm, doing decently, taking on the occasional high profile case. He probably wouldn't be a best selling author; I think that happened because he gained a following as a result of his blog and then his Salon gig.

04-02-2008, 07:49 AM	#81 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	consider as well that most of us don't have racial hangups and have better things to do with our time than try to figure out how to stick it to people who are different. I also find it distressing, as well as intellectually dishonest, that many left-leaners will try to make every discussion about race even if it has nothing to do with race. We were discussing economics, host, not race. My argument has zero to do with anyone's skin color. And I resent it deeply that you are trying to make this into a racial thing. I would venture to say I probably have more people of different races, ethnicities and sexual orientations in my life than most people, and I don't appreciate the insinuation that if I don't agree with your view of things it makes me a racist. Last edited by loquitur; 04-02-2008 at 07:57 AM..

04-02-2008, 08:08 AM	#83 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	so wait a minute... again are you stating that the US Senator was not there because of ability or opportunity but installed as a puppet. Your posts insinuate that Condi Rice and Colin Powell were not there due to ability but because it shifted overnight. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

04-02-2008, 09:17 AM	#87 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	nvm. host, i'm trying to understand your position but you've made it so obtuse that you're speaking in a foreign language. you're welcome to try again, but I'll probably just gloss over your response since I cannot understand what your point is in suddenly bringing up race since it wasn't your position of discussion from page 1. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

04-02-2008, 01:50 PM	#95 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	aww can't we just use a flea bomb to get rid of the fleas? and the politicos... __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

04-15-2008, 09:30 AM	#101 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	do i understand from your statement host that corruption and inequality are wrapped togethere like a DNA strand? __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

04-02-2008, 08:55 AM	#85 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	host, the issue is that you are noting a correspondence and then declaring it causal. Maybe Mississippi is a backwater, so there are limited opportunities there? Maybe it's a calcified social structure because it's not economically dynamic as opposed to vice versa? Also, I suspect that in areas where there is economic dynamism in Mississippi you'll also see much less racial disparity in economic well-being. But Mississippi isn't the whole country. In the US as a whole, race-based economic disparities are decreasing, and have been for years. I would expect they will continue to decrease for a while until they level off.

04-02-2008, 12:07 PM	#92 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	Well, my answer is to get the govt out of a lot of stuff it is in now. If you do that, political connections will matter a lot less. Less for government to do, less chance for corruption. Less government, less need for "access," so fewer campaign contributions. Slimming down government will have all sorts of salutary effects.

04-02-2008, 01:07 PM	#94 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	"less" and "zero" are not synonyms, cynth. Like fleas, corruption and nepotism will always be with us to some degree. I just think we shouldn't set up structures to incubate them.

04-15-2008, 08:39 AM	#99 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	but host, this thread isn't to discuss corruption, it's to discuss inequality. My point is that inequality in and of itself isn't objectionable. Other people feel differently and I wanted to know why. I think we all agree there is some degree of corruption everywhere, but that exists in every society. IIRC you started a thread about corruption and other stuff precisely because it was OT for this thread.

04-15-2008, 09:57 AM	#103 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	and what about inequality created by an honest worker like you and me? or is the implication that some how we are also corrupt in some fashion? __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

04-15-2008, 09:59 AM	#104 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	host, you can object, but there are plenty of honest rich people. And plenty of dishonest poor people. Inequality is not in lockstep with dishonesty. All you have supplied to the contrary is some anecdotes. There are some dishonest people in every social class and every profession. However, your post does explain a lot of what is driving your positions. I think I understand better now where you are coming from. Do you really believe it is not possible to be both well off and honest at the same time? And if it is, would you expect Democratic candidates to refuse campaign contributions from their rich supporters rather than taint themselves?

04-15-2008, 10:20 AM	#106 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	what I think loq is pointing out is the same for me. what about the three of us, taken as context for this example, I state I'm an honest person. It appears that both you and loquiter are as well. So where does that leave us in this picture you paint? __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

04-15-2008, 10:20 AM	#107 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	Perhaps what host is getting at, is that an individual's honesty is perfunctory when they are benefitting from a system that is corrupt. maybe... __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

04-15-2008, 10:25 AM	#108 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	that could be, but that's someone who is "corrupt" in some fashion or "corruptable". so here you are as well mix, where does that leave the 4 of us honest people? does that imply we're somewhat corrupt with some sort of Original Sin because of our parents who gave us something above and beyond the immagrant worker? __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

04-15-2008, 10:27 AM	#109 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	No, I don't think so. I haven't really given it a lot of thought, though, just been following the conversation. But I see truth in both sides. __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

04-15-2008, 06:33 PM	#110 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	Actually, host, corruption and prosperity tend to be inversely related. The US may not be the least corrupt country (IIRC it's Finland, but I'd need to dig that study out) but it's fairly low on the list. Truly corrupt countries tend also to have mass poverty and low levels of economic development. (Ah, here we go - it is indeed Finland. Myanmar and Somalia are the most corrupt. Or try this one, which is similar.) Also, you're collapsing a few different concepts together. As I read you, you're saying a few different things: 1. People who are rich got there through corruption or fraud. This one I think is demonstrably false as a gross statement. The Fortune 400 is not populated by the equivalent of mafia dons. 2. Being rich gives you good connections that help you get things done more easily than people who aren't rich. Partly true, but not exclusive to the rich. Union leaders, for example, or NGO leaders, also have good connections that they can call on, and sometimes they carry more weight than mere money. The NY state legislature is pretty much a wholly owned subsidiary of one of the unions (Local 1199). 3. People who are already rich sometimes do dishonest things. Yup. People who aren't rich also sometimes do dishonest things. People, rich or not, often do things they shouldn't do if they think they can get away with them. You realize, of course, that because people are different in their talents and abilities there will always be economic inequality even if everyone was scrupulously honest. I find it curious that you seem to dispute that.

04-16-2008, 04:13 AM	#112 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	hegemony: ideology: control of worldviews through the ability to shape categories and the logics that are available to combine them. once upon a time, in the olden days of private ownership of large-scale firms, the bourgeoisie was a tiny discrete social group and as over against them in marx were the folk who sold their labor power for a wage. back in those days, it made sense to imagine a small and shrinking cadre of the wealthy and powerful whose wealth enabled them political and personal freedom, whose abilities to be politically and personally free presupposed a vast system of wage slavery. there are those who get to flower as human beings and there are those who sell their labor power, become interchangeable as commodity-bearers (labor power is a commodity) dehumanized, etc. once upon a time, during the transition away from craft production, there was still an argument to be made that atomizing work, deskilling, repetition were all dehumanizing, and that a system of production geared around that generated problematic human costs, even as standardized goods were cheaper than non-standardized goods--but once upon a time it was not obvious that there was any demand or need for standardized goods--such demand was produced--and so it follows that in capitalism, demand follows supply at the point where those who mediate that relation are able to tell those who demand what they want. it is like this, it is always like this in capitalism, that demand follows supply once demand is told by those who mediate that relation what it is that they want. supply follows demand an partial, almost upside down view of the world that generates the illusion of power residing with those whose primary social function is to select from amongst a narrow range of officially sanctioned consumer options, to desire within circumscribed limits, to think in particular ways and not others. hegemony lay not only in the creation of desire the creation of demand but also in the image that one has of how demand fits into a larger picture, one that presupposes a separation of the economic from other spheres and a host of other bourgeois mental ticks besides. once upon a time industrial production was concentrated inside of nation-states so that firms, by accepting the nation-state as a natural boundary within which primary economic activity was undertaken and understood, necessary found themselves involved with questions of the social reproduction of the labor force--to operate they needed a stream of minimally skilled but ultimately interchangeable bodies to be subordinates of the machinery on the factory floor. once upon a time, this obligation to concern itself with the reproduction of the labor force meant that a number of brakes obtained on rates of exploitation. of course there was in the old school terminology always an industrial reserve army, but now the industrial reserve army is the size of the planet. anything goes. the most blinkered an short-sighted form of capitalism run the show. its natural, like the weather. those days are largely gone: the is no working class to speak of in the united states at this point, not in the old sense of the term. there are working-class people in the sociologically descriptive sense, but not so many in terms of the political sense, that which marx isolated through the notion of the proletariat, the class in and for itself. and there is a relatively large social group which owns the instruments of production through the holding of stock and other instruments. there are varying degrees of class awareness amongst this population. class position being vague, of course, all types of populist or identity-politics ideologies are eaten in these neighborhoods many folk are of the lumpenbourgeoisie. i like that term and haven't used it for a while. the sack of potatos that carried political shit for the holders of power, those nice reliable petit bourgeois reactionaries who act against their own objective interests because they'd rather pretend they were wealthy than look the fuck around....and there is an ideological context in which this is all understood as natural and necessary like the weather. hegemony is the ability to convince people that any number of particular political and economic choices that adversely affect populations way beyond the limits of the firm or industrial sector just happen like the weather. powerless we all are. such inequality of power is natural--some get to decide others react--some decide your fate, you watch tv. it's natural. like the weather. since the current socio-economic order, call it neoliberalism call it globalization it hardly matters, is natural like the weather--no matter that this assumption is a pure function of hegemony, a demonstration of it, a confirmation--the extent to which this neutralizes thinking about the material fact of the existing order AS a system is a good index of the effects of hegemony--so here: there is inequality and there is inequality. there, in aristotle, it is natural. here, because everything is naturalized because those nice men on tv say so those nice people who write for the papers say so those nice photographs i look at tell me so that nice tv footage i see shows me so, there is inequality there was natural inequality in aristotle there is inequality now where i am told everything that happens is like the weather, they are the same so q.e.d. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 04-16-2008 at 05:15 AM..

04-16-2008, 04:57 AM	#113 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	Yeah, that's what I meant. __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

04-16-2008, 04:57 PM	#117 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	A vacation? Oy. I'd settle for just a good night's sleep.

04-17-2008, 04:16 AM	#120 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	actually, the net is a pretty good democratizer. It has opened up opportunities for a lot of people who otherwise would not have come to public attention. Take Glenn Greenwald, for example. I actually litigated against him, as it happens (years ago). If not for the net he might still have his small law firm, doing decently, taking on the occasional high profile case. He probably wouldn't be a best selling author; I think that happened because he gained a following as a result of his blog and then his Salon gig.