Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [existlist] Re: Perspectiveism follows existentialism

Expand Messages
  • tom
    CS, I don t think it is likely that a very candid person adverse to corruption can progress in the US political scene. If a person does not show a willingness
    Message 1 of 20 , Jun 4, 2009
    • 0 Attachment

      I don't think it is likely that a very candid person adverse to corruption can progress in the US political scene. If a person does not show a willingness to be a part of various intriges, I suspect they will not be supported by the forces necesary for political progress. It is also true people tend to identify with the values of the subcultures thery are in. As corruption increases, political subcultures become more and more permissive of various shenanigans. For many years, congressmen turning lobbyists was seen as rather tacky. However, beginning with the Clinton administration and continuing in the Bush administration, it has become increasingly prevalent with now over half of former congressmen now becoming lobbyists, as well as many congressional aides and cabinet and subcabinet people. Certainly the political subculture considers themselves entitled, and look upon bribes of various kinds as waiters and waitresses do tips. Their values are more a reflection of their subculture than that of John Q Public. As a Chicago cop told me one time when I said in regard to a speeding violation that I'd appreciate it if hed give me a break. He said" Everybody appreciates it, but that don't do the cop no good". I gave him a $20 and went on my way.

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Exist List Moderator
      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 10:32 AM
      Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: Perspectiveism follows existentialism

      On Jun 03, 2009, at 22:53, tom wrote:

      > opportunists.During the Bush years, about 18 Republican congressmen
      > and about 7 or 8 Democtatic congressmen were either indited,
      > convicted, or forced to resign due to scandal[my figures may be off
      > a bit but not a lot]. In any case, its about 4 or 5% of the
      > representatives and senators.

      I checked. The party in power generally has twice the number of
      members under investigations that lead to either resignation or
      removal from office. If we add those those do not resign, but are
      under investigation, it gets murky -- William Jefferson held on for a
      long time and John Murtha is expert at letting everyone around him sink.

      So, this supports your contention that people in power either tend
      towards or already were corrupt.

      Here, then is the question: do people get corrupted by the power or
      are people interested in power more likely to tend towards the
      corruption? I think the mess in the U.K shows that people in power
      start to think of themselves as somehow entitled to special treatment
      and endless expense accounts. In other words, the power and authority
      lead to a sense of being above and beyond normal ethics?

      > I'm sure Murdoch is very into money, but I suspect that more than
      > advertising revenues are involved in their agenda. Since the Iraq
      > War, most Clear Channel stations will not play any peace songs like
      > "Imagine" etc. Clear Channel in one way or another is affiliated
      > with record companies which no longer promote charismic
      > personalities...

      Separate -- very separate -- topic...

      Murdoch has no association with Clear Channel. Clear Channel is what
      it is, in large part, because it is a product of Texas. The
      corporation and most of its decisions are out of Texas, and like so
      much radio today the satellite feeds overwhelm local markets. There
      simply aren't many locally owned, locally operated, media outlets due
      to the expenses involved. (When I saw the operations budget for a
      small FM/AM country combo, it was near $1M in 1988 -- for a rural
      station! Electricity, satellites, and equipment are not cheap.)

      I've worked for several large media companies and can tell you that we
      were never told what to do. The problem is that the culture of any
      organization attracts like-minded individuals, so you end up with an
      echo chamber.

      My coworkers at newspapers and magazines were almost universally to
      the center-left. In radio, all three stations I've been at were
      universally to the right, even the heavy metal station.

      We know professions attract, generally not universally, certain
      outlooks, beliefs, and general philosophies. The people around me in
      the humanities departments at the university are, overwhelmingly, to
      the left. Some are quite far to the left and some are just quite far
      out there. If I were in a business school, more instructors might be
      to the center and right. The computer industry is generally centrist,
      while the "open source" advocates tend slightly more left.

      In other words, to say there is a bias among a group might not be any
      grand plot or scheme. Similar people end up at similar places. There
      are outliers, but rarely.

      > By 2002, the Unification Church had spent about $1.7 billion in
      > subsidies for the Times.

      It looks like you grabbed the Washington Times section from Wikipedia.
      You can check the Times history directly via the UPI / NewsWorld
      Communications. Moon does indeed own the majority of shares in the
      Times, UPI, and NewsMax. UPI also supplies news to Salem
      Communications and several "conservative" publishers.

      The bigger question is if any of this is really new or reflects a
      social change. In reality, we have had "media magnates" since (and
      before) Wm. Randolph Hearst. Most newspaper and media chains were
      dominated by specific families, from the Chandlers in Los Angeles to
      the Grahams in D.C.

      Until the 1940s, most regional newspapers were party-controlled and
      named accordingly. There is a reason newspapers included "Press
      Democrat" and "Daily Republican" in their mastheads. The media were,
      until WWII, unabashedly biased and proud of those biases. I don't have
      a problem with that, since you knew exactly what to expect.

      If you want information, it is out there. The Nation, New Republic,
      Mother Jones, Utne Reader, and so on exist and are easier than ever to
      access online. If citizens choose to live sheltered from information,
      that's definitely a person choice.

      People opt for American Idol over BBC World Service. Britain's Got
      Talent spread across the globe like a virus... it was a choice people

      - C. S. Wyatt
      I am what I am at this moment, not what I was and certainly not all
      that I shall be.
      http://www.tameri.com - Tameri Guide for Writers
      http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist - The Existential Primer

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • louise
      Mary, What are you saying, please? Where is the connection between ruling the universe , and the alleged contest between human governments and the
      Message 2 of 20 , Jun 5, 2009
      • 0 Attachment

        What are you saying, please? Where is the connection between 'ruling the universe', and the alleged contest between human governments and the individual? This whole subject seems wholly muddled as to categories.


        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "mary.josie59" <mary.josie59@...> wrote:
        > When you discard the delusion that either a god and/or a devil is ruling the universe, you're left with human governments vying with the individual. In the introductory chapters of the satire, "The Master and the Margarita," the Devil suggests that no one governs their own life. I would say, no, not absolutely. I would also suggest that Nothing governs absolutely.
        > Existentialism is also concerned with governance, who and how. We can micromanage within the swirling chaos of political idealism and civil laws. No one entity could possibly know what is best, or even expedient, for each human being, or our entire ecosystem, for that matter. The pursuit of happiness/self-governance can be terrifying, even within constructs as simple as "couple" or a "family."
        > Watching television for anything other than entertainment deludes us into thinking we are actually participants in the madness presented to us as reality.
        > Mary
        > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Exist List Moderator <existlist1@> wrote:
        > I often wonder, why would anyone want to be a governor, a senator, or national leader? It seems that some level of self-delusion is necessary to think you have better answers or any answers at all...
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.