Jones isn't being any shittier here than any of a number of corporations... and he is taking advantage of a legal system/regime that is basically set up to favor corporations over citizens (but wait, corporations are people too).
When you can buy the politicians and have your lobbyists help write the legislation, it somehow magically seems to work in your favor.
This is why most reform tends to not solve the actual problems, it only hides poison pills (to counter balance the stated intention of the reform) that actually seem to make things worse.
Corps abuse the law all the time. Rich and powerful people abuse the law all the time. Nobody at the bottom has the level of anger or ability to do much about it.
Don't look for any of this to change any time soon, if ever.
Have sometimes wondered how corporations can act in some of the ways that they do, irrespective of the imperative to 'maximize profit'. But then I recall something I read a half a lifetime ago. In the book On a Clear Day You Can See General Motors (1979), John DeLorean, a former corporate VP at the company, spoke directly to this. Can't quote verbatim, but the gist of what he said was that many of the corporate movers and shakers were as moral as anyone else, some of them even more so, in their private lives. But when they walked into the corporate boardroom or executive suite, all bets were off. They changed from who they were outside the corporate walls and made decisions that they would not similarly make in their private lives. A testament, I suppose, to the compartmentalizing power of the mantra "It's just business".
Now, considering the source for this observation is John DeLorean of 'cocaine capital financing to support his own auto company's production' fame, I suppose you can take that with a grain or two of salt. But then again, maybe not.
There is a truth to the observation--which I have remarked upon here in some other posts WRT corporations not being ethical actors... and hence not being deserving of full "personhood."
Our culture has carved out a number of exceptions to codes of morality/ethics. These exceptions are rooted in either:
1) being ethical is not a requirement (and is in fact a liability) in the particular area in issue (most notably business);
2) Incredibly low expectations leading to the acceptance of unethical behavior (usually in politics).
These aren't the only ones, just the two main ones that are basically screwing over our society.
People tend to be moral as private individuals, because there are consequences when you aren't. They will (as a minimum) act to appear ethical even if they are not actually so. There are rare individuals who will not, but they are aberrations and have psychological issues (Trump is an example). It is amazing how someone so mentally ill (because he is) can amass such power and popularity.
When you get people into groups is where you have issues. Corporations not only reduce financial liability they reduce ethical liability as well. Any collective does this unless steps are taken to avoid it.
Mistakes were made...
It's not personal, its just business...
The observation/belief that the responsibility of corporate officers is strictly fiduciary.. and that the sole purpose of corporations is to make money.
Toxic. Agree. 100%. Also, 'boardroom behavior' in a way a bit analogous to 'mob behavior / mentality' in which individuals within the group will for a brief period act in ways that they never would outside the group as lone individuals. Not 'hysteria' at work, but a sort of safety in numbers, those numbers being the others present that mutually reinforce the appropriateness of the action being taken. Problem is, boardroom behavior is not brief but is an ongoing enterprise. The riot never ends! The 'mob' never disperses.
I, too, believe the idea that "corporations are people, too" is a deeply flawed one.
Adding to reasons to contribute to Jose Andres' World Central Kitchen -- it receives the highest possible score from Charity Navigator -- a rare 100 out of 100 points for efficient use of funds towards operations: Rating at https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/273521132
RE: Alex Jones and "There should be a special place in hell for him."
Yes. Yes, indeed. Might I suggest Dante's 8th Circle of Hell (specifically for those who knowingly and willingly commit fraud) as a permanent repository for his soul, after a very brief introductory stay - oh, say a few hundred thousand lifetimes or so - in the 4th (greed).
With its near dozen 'bolgias' available to segregate fraudsters according to their particular type of offense and mete out punishment accordingly, I'm sure appropriate accommodations for Mr. Jones can be found, though he may have to be moved about from one to the other from time to time, just to make sure all the right bases are covered.
You're welcome, Sandy G. In all honesty, I pretty much slogged my way through it many, many years ago, and since then have found it much more interesting and easier to 'read about' than to actually read again! Just a language thing - or lazy brain thing - I suppose. Thank goodness for Google (not sure I ever thought I'd say that). It's been so long, I had to look it up to make sure I had my 'circles' straight (no pun intended). Figured as long as I was there, might as well share it.
I read The Inferno using a verso translation — original Italian on the recto, a prose English translation on the verso. The language is beautiful, sometimes humorous. A verso translation makes reading in the original language rewarding even for a beginner's understanding of the language.
It's a bit jarring to the modern mind to see betrayal of Caesar put equal to betrayal of Christ. Our attitude to temporal lords is now somewhat different.
Gosh, I like Netflix. I watch it often. I pay my monthly fee and it's worth it to me. I would never share my password with someine else because, well, isn't that wrong, cheating? Call me old-fashioned but....
When COVID hit I read an article suggesting that it might hurt Netflix in the long run. Their subscriber numbers will eventually level off (as we're now seeing) but with their all-you-can-eat business model, if you watch ten hours of Netflix per day or one hour per month, you're charged the same. So the cost of keeping their servers running and stuff would go way up if people are binging Netflix while in lockdown, but it wouldn't result in any new revenue.
As the streaming services crack down on password sharing, I'd say you'll see people start subscribing to one service per month and just keep alternating them. (Netflix in May, Disney+ in June, and so on.) Amazon Prime has a huge advantage by packaging it with their Prime shipping service.
As for Netflix itself, they're at a disadvantage in not having a massive catalog of IP accumulated over the years, so I wouldn't be surprised if they make their marriage to Sony Pictures official in the coming years. Actually, I can see Netflix and some of the "small" major studios - Sony, Paramount, Universal, etc. - merging or entering into some kind of streaming joint venture to compete with Disney and Warner. It's not unlike what happened to the music industry.
The wild card, which I think people tend to overlook, is that young people watch YouTube much more than any of the paid streaming services. At least if my kids are any indication. Thanks to my son I just discovered the Dhar Mann YouTube rabbit hole.
There's an old bankruptcy saying: "When a pig becomes a hog, it gets slaughtered." Under the old bankruptcy law, judges could refuse to release from bankruptcy people who concealed or transferred assets before filing. I believe judges still have that option.
Texas law does not treat a merger as a transfer of assets. Can’t easily claim there’s a fraudulent transfer of asset with no legal transfer. Texas law sucks.
Given the right incentives from corporations I am sure politicians will make what Jones is doing standard operating procedure. The same way politicians are making harder and harder to sue corporations and expanding the ways they can avoid taxation.
Florida's Republicans are being confronted with constituent anger over escalating home insurance costs. Their solution? Limit insurers liabilities, shield insurers from civil litigation to enforce the contracts made with home owners, and increasing deductibles and copays for more expensive repairs. Similar to their agenda to limit medical malpractice liability as a sure way to lower consumer costs of health care. Yet another kind of "trickle down" economics.
As long as there are idiots, there will be Alex Joneses.
I wonder, when Jones started on his career path, if he did so with intention. He's the guy on the soap box at the National Mall who somehow parlayed his delusional ravings into national exposure and millions of dollars. If you're Alex Jones, do you start your schtick as a joke, knowing no one could possibly take it seriously, then find, to your complete shock, that if you hit the virality and network dynamics lottery, you have an army of loyal adherents, and an inexhaustible pool of marks?
Also, these conspiracy weirdos like to talk about crisis actors. Have there ever been documented crisis actors, anywhere, any time, or is that just all made up? I know, I know. The fact that you've never found evidence of them is just proof of how calculating and devious these crisis actors are.
Jones says that when he was a teen, he read some Bircher literature and got into scrapes with local corrupt police. His parents were on friendly terms with Bircher neighbors, though he describes his parents as otherwise unpolitical. The same police busting him in his teenage years also showed up at local parties to sell drugs to his friends, and after some confrontations escalated, they threatened to frame him. At the time, Bircher lore may have struck him as the obvious explanation for the corruption of authority he'd personally witnessed.
Teens believe plenty of crazy stuff but usually grow out of it. Why didn't he? Seems like he was richly rewarded for not growing out of it, both financially and, well, spiritually — finding mentorship and community among those spreading the gospel of crazy. Even bosses' attempts to punish him by firing him for getting too wacky enriched him, getting him into digital media early.
From the interview:
"On the spiritual cancer of modern capitalism, Jones sounds more like Ralph Nader than a Fox Business channel libertarian. 'Madison Avenue makes us addicts of consumerism, using glass wampum to steal our capacity to direct our own lives,' Jones says. 'The globalists are smart and tell us sin is fun, sin is a red-devil cheerleader. No — sin is cheating other people, it’s sending troops to die in illegal wars, it’s keeping people dumb so you can control, exploit and kill them.'"
Coming from Jones, that's hilarious. Deeply sick and sad, but hilarious.
Very interesting. It's impressive how, gradually, people can become that which they claim they despise. His quote is a mix of genuine insight about Madison Avenue, paranoia, and a complete lack of introspection.
I have no affection for Judge Judy. She is a horrible, angry, insensitive, self-righteous asshole. I literally cannot watch her show, and frankly, I don't understand how a person with any kind of compassion can countenance her behavior toward the people who prostrate themselves to her cruel show.
I used to work in an infusion center where we would get state prisoners with guards for treatment and they were always watching court shows like JJ, Judge Mathis etc., Jerry Springer or Cops. I thought it was weird. Given the opportunity, wouldn't you want to be distracted by something with creative merit that could be uplifting or at least take you our of your own circumstances-- an escape for the mind?
For people dissatisfied with the injustice of this life, a fantasy version of justice might be how they seek escapism from their own circumstances.
When I was a newlywed, I lived in a city known for its unresponsive police. We came home one day to find our place had been burgled. The theft was no emergency. Whoever had done this was long gone. So I called the police, non-emergency. I couldn't get through. Feeling like a walk, anyhow, I walked to the local station to report the burglary. The police there laughed at me. What kind of ditz seeks out neighborhood police to report a theft these days?!
After they stopped laughing, they explained I should call 911, further tying up emergency response, though I wasn't having an emergency, to report the theft. So I did. A whole year later, I finally get follow-up from the police, but by then I had fresher troubles to manage.
I'm pretty privileged. If I don't get the consolation of timely justice over a theft that didn't hurt my standard of living much anyhow, I have plenty else to occupy my mind besides fantasies of justice. The indignity of being laughed at by police for trying to report a crime stung me at first, but soon faded. Others, though, with fewer consolations? Maybe fantasy justice is their escape from their own experience of injustice and indignity.
Perhaps. But then again, if you ask most of them, they are all innocent. Except the guy in the ED the other night. He came from Elmira and was a murderer-rapist (admitted). My husband and I were also robbed, they took our phone (before the time of cellphones) so we had to call the police from our neighbors apartment. They didn't laugh at us but they also never recovered anything.
Hey Midge...would like to get your take on something I've been thinking about lately, which doesn't have a direct relation to the subject at hand here but is at least tangential. And I want to be absolutely clear this isn't a criticism of any kind but rather an honest inquiry. Recently offered a polite explanation for a comment to someone who asked for it, and for whatever reason they took it as "blame", which it was in fact not. It all went south pretty quickly, and I'm not looking for a repeat of that kind of misunderstanding.
"I'm pretty privileged." I understand your meaning in light of your subject. I could say the same thing about myself. But here's what I've been wondering about lately...
The word privilege has been used far and wide of late with regard to race, so much so that it often seems to inherently carry a negative racial overtone or connotation regardless of the circumstance in which it's used. And I think this can be detrimental to a lot of conversations (though not this one particularly). Sometimes I think 'advantage' or 'advantaged' might be a better descriptor in some circumstances because it is more 'neutral' as far as current usage goes. Consider the following...
Privilege: a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group.
Advantage: a condition or circumstance that puts one in a favorable or superior position.
Privileges are more often 'granted' rather than 'earned'. Not as much when it comes to 'advantages', since many of them must be 'earned' in one way or another. The theft you spoke of didn't affect you much economically, which took some of the 'sting' out of it. In this case, I think this is a circumstance of advantage rather than privilege, since it could apply to folks of any race who find themselves in similar economic circumstances and with "plenty else to occupy [their minds]", while the word privilege has, by my lights anyway, come to commonly denote something quite different.
I hope you can see what I'm driving at, since I don't want to drive at it too hard or too long. I've just come to think that a lot of the heat in our public discourse about certain things is unintentionally (or, sadly, sometimes intentionally) generated unnecessarily by words that are correct in many ways, but because of the negative connotations they often garner would be better replaced with something more appropriate to the specific subject / circumstance. This may not actually lower the temperature overall any time soon but might just snuff out a fire or two on occasion. And if enough of those small blazes are extinguished, perhaps the larger ones will start to die down a bit as well, and the lower temp could be more conducive to better understanding by all concerned.
Again, I want to emphasize I'm not criticizing here but only speculating and looking for an opinion. What you wrote seemed a good opportunity to broach the subject with someone who is articulate and seems to care about language (noted your comment about Inferno), and I guess I just wanted to take advantage of that. (Sometimes certain plays on words are sort of unavoidable. Sorry.) So, if you have the time and inclination to throw something back at me, not about this one particular instance so much but about my larger reference to our public discourse, I'd much appreciate it. And if not, no harm, no foul. Will just say thanks for taking the time to read this.
I get where you're coming from. "Privilege" ends up being a contentious word, partly because it's treated as a marker of tribal identity in the culture wars, partly because it may insinuate that a "privilege" is somehow not earned. On the other hand, it's standard to call a driver's license a privilege, not a right, and it is earned: I don't think the case that "privilege" denotes what's unearned is particularly strong. Even so, when people want to distinguish between earned and unearned advantages, they may use "privilege" for the latter: having distinct words for distinct ideas is handy.
Depending on who I'm talking to, I might use "privilege" or "advantage" or even "blessing" to lower the temperature. Among Bulwark subscribers, I think "privilege" is OK. The Bulwark stakes out a space where being conservative means not having to be anti-"woke" all the time, where it's possible to engage the "woke" on their own terms, and "privilege" is now famous as a "woke" word.
On a personal note, I was lucky to be born with a body like mine into a well-educated, upper-middle-class family. I was born with a tissue defect that's physically easy to detect, but still often not tested for (I wasn't tested till my 30s, after I'd had kids), even with the best medical care. It's not terrible, at least not in my case, but it does tend to cause unexplained, uncomfortable weirdness at an early age. Which in turn may result in fun stuff like medical debt, wrongful institutionalization, painkiller dependency... That I got my degree, got out of medical debt, never got hooked on narcotics, eventually got a diagnosis, and now can at least fake it (most of the time) as a semi-respectable suburban mom is all pretty lucky. Sure, it took effort and tough choices, but it was definitely made easier by other unearned advantages I just lucked into. Under any definition of "privilege", "privilege" seems to describe the good luck in my life pretty well.
Well, thanks for getting back to me on this. And I think you're right in everything you said. Especially the relationship of the meaning of privilege as it relates to luck. I've been rather privileged in that way for a few reasons myself.
Semantics can be choppy waters to navigate sometimes. But while I'm by no means a language expert of any kind, I've always been interested in language and words and how they serve as the main medium for our communication with each other, and I often find the nuances of that communication of particular interest, and like to get perspectives from people that, because of their own life experiences, may see something I take to be correct about this subject differently from me.
You noted that you may choose different words to convey the same idea, depending upon whom you're talking to. I often do the same, in the interest of trying to make a point without generating any unnecessary and distracting heat, whether it involves posting a comment or speaking to someone IRL. There are a few other places where I post comments that I often write a bit differently than I do here for a couple of reasons, so your point about that is well taken.
Thanks again for your response. I find it quite useful in my thinking on this. BTW...interesting what you said about reading Inferno using a verso translation. Have never had that kind of experience, since my only language skills are of the English variety. I'm of Italian descent, my father being 1st generation from a large Italian family in Philly. He spoke and understood Italian, but never passed that skill on to me. Wasn't much call for it in the small central Kentucky town where I was born and raised, being as ours was the only Italian name in the phone book. Which not only covered the town but the whole county. ;-)
Well, I don't believe they would feel vicariously vindicated watching any of those shows. A friend of mine was recently at her father's bedside in an emergency dept. next to a rapist-murderer attended by 4 prison guards drawing their overtime paid by my NYS taxes. This guy kept talking to her and finally she said - "Buddy I am not your friend and frankly, you lost me at the rape and murder. I don't give a shit what has happened to you. Don't talk to me." However, he continued to try to talk to her and in particular stare at her. The prison guards did nothing. He got his surgical consult and an OR date and time the very next day. (Broken jaw d/t testifying against another rapist for a lesser sentence.. what can I say? snitches get stitches) but all paid for by us. I hope they break it again.
Vindication for what goes on in prison, or what sends the most violent offenders to prison? No. But aren't prisoners and prison guards also likely to come from populations where small-claims-sized wrongs are particularly frustrating?
A fantasy of ordinary life being a bit more just, a "no-nonsense" personality whose "tough talk" seems to firmly divide right from wrong and wise from foolish? It seems possible that those less insulated from social breakdown would appreciate this fantasy more. If it comes with lurid spectacle and schadenfreude, so much the more entertaining, I suppose.
LOL! That is exactly why audiences tune in--- they love watching her dish it out to people with whom they can't identify or empathize. The cruelty IS the point.
The "guests" volunteer for it--- to be degraded in public is worth the 15 minutes of "fame" they get in return. They will be replaying recordings of their appearance for family and friends for decades. They will be played at their funerals.
My daughter was on Judge Judy. She was in a dispute with a former friend/landlord and filed in small claims. She was invited to be on the show, and they coached her and set her up as "the good girl" and the landlord as "the bad girl." She won her case, and the show paid the small amount of funds she was rewarded.
I think you're correct. Don't think too many B members are offended by the occasional scatological reference to register their disgust or outright revulsion when and where appropriate, whether they're offered in plain straightforward words or dressed up a bit for the sake of politeness or perhaps emphasis.
We're all pretty much grown up here. And when it comes to this guy, it's more than appropriate. So, allow me to pile on (pun intended?):
Jones and his ilk are what the maintenance worker finds stuck to the bottom of the septic tank.
Oooh - like your pile on! The curse word is used so much, this requires me the reader to think about what you are saying.
I did this once with some high school students who were engaged in something - I think it was bullying - and I intervened. Of course, the student gave the standard defense - what I do? I didn't do anything. As a teacher, I can't say "bullshit" to a student, but that of course was my immediate response. So I wrote in the air with my index finger the capital letters B and S - backwards, of course (the B was easy, the S took some thought). That disarmed them cause they had to think about what I displayed. That gave me the upper hand.
Yes...and when straight-up profanity is overused it loses its 'value', so to speak.
I was raised by a mother in a southern state who would have lathered up the toothbrush with soap had I spoken such words within earshot of her, and I've always been thankful for that, since it helped teach me the proper way to behave and speak in 'polite company'. But it led to some interesting experiences for me as a young adult.
The shocker for me upon starting a skilled trades apprenticeship in a large General Motors shop in a northern state in the mid '70's where thousands of women worked on the shop floor wasn't that the men freely engaged in 'shop talk', but that the women did as well!! Hoo Boy! At that point in my relative innocence about the ways of the world, I didn't think women would even know a lot of those words, much less use them in mixed company!
That apprenticeship turned out to be a real education in more ways than one.
Profanity, used sparingly and smartly has power. Most people over use it. Teenagers and young adults definitely over use it. It becomes noise. Meaningless and unprovocative.
I have been a public school teacher for 25 years (English and art). Prior to that I was in the military. I know a lot of words, I have the best words--sometimes I use them to telling effect. It has a telling effect because I rarely use those words (even among only adults), the expectation is that I won't/can't use those words, and when I do use those words it is at the right time and place.
A lot of times using a "close" word when it is clear I mean the other word works just as well.
Yes, I stomped on that right away. What was current (and still seems to be) is saying/writing things like "more better" They also still seem to like to use the word like... It's, like, more better than before. :sigh:
The language teen-aged girls use today - at my Catholic school! - in "mixed company" as my mother used to call it, is atrociuos! They are not allowed to use profanity on campus, and they forget that I can hear them as they chatter in their groups in the library. Thank God that arbiter of politeness still exists! At both Catholic and public schools, teachers are still addressed as Mr., Mrs and Ms. That hasn't been done in by the culture.
My wife's a retired children's librarian from a public city library. Quite a few similar observations from her over the years. Not that a lot of kids aren't going to eventually learn to swear like sailors (I certainly did, though not from my father, who was a merchant seaman before I came along but kept his profanity to an occasional 'damn' or two). Just kind of disheartening that so many are never taught or never learn when to turn it on and off. I can hurl the F-bomb with the best of 'em when properly provoked, but after 5 decades of listening to 'shop talk' containing various levels of profanity on a daily basis, it gets a bit old after a while.
Spent a decade plus working in a shop often elbow to elbow with a guy who'd been there for many years and who was the most ill-tempered, profane and vulgar man I've ever known. It all got to be pretty much background noise after a while, but to illustrate...
A newly hired machinist was walking past where I was working at one end of the shop at the exact moment this fellow crashed his mill at the other end. The new guy stopped, turned around and listened in obvious amazement at the profanity-saturated tirade boiling over about 20 yards away. He then turned to me and said in all seriousness "I didn't know a human being could say the word f**k so many times without taking a breath."
I literally cracked up, then managed to choke out "Welcome to our world" while gesturing at the other fellows in the area, who though capable of salty language themselves, still looked askance at this miscreant's constant flow of verbal sewage.
And yet ordinary folks can’t discharge their student loans in bankruptcy. And no, they’re not all just kids who went to fancy schools and got degrees in art history; a lot of the times, they were people who were told by folks in certain circles (cough, cough) that if you want to do better than minimum wage, go educate yourself and get a better job!
Jones isn't being any shittier here than any of a number of corporations... and he is taking advantage of a legal system/regime that is basically set up to favor corporations over citizens (but wait, corporations are people too).
When you can buy the politicians and have your lobbyists help write the legislation, it somehow magically seems to work in your favor.
This is why most reform tends to not solve the actual problems, it only hides poison pills (to counter balance the stated intention of the reform) that actually seem to make things worse.
Corps abuse the law all the time. Rich and powerful people abuse the law all the time. Nobody at the bottom has the level of anger or ability to do much about it.
Don't look for any of this to change any time soon, if ever.
Have sometimes wondered how corporations can act in some of the ways that they do, irrespective of the imperative to 'maximize profit'. But then I recall something I read a half a lifetime ago. In the book On a Clear Day You Can See General Motors (1979), John DeLorean, a former corporate VP at the company, spoke directly to this. Can't quote verbatim, but the gist of what he said was that many of the corporate movers and shakers were as moral as anyone else, some of them even more so, in their private lives. But when they walked into the corporate boardroom or executive suite, all bets were off. They changed from who they were outside the corporate walls and made decisions that they would not similarly make in their private lives. A testament, I suppose, to the compartmentalizing power of the mantra "It's just business".
Now, considering the source for this observation is John DeLorean of 'cocaine capital financing to support his own auto company's production' fame, I suppose you can take that with a grain or two of salt. But then again, maybe not.
There is a truth to the observation--which I have remarked upon here in some other posts WRT corporations not being ethical actors... and hence not being deserving of full "personhood."
Our culture has carved out a number of exceptions to codes of morality/ethics. These exceptions are rooted in either:
1) being ethical is not a requirement (and is in fact a liability) in the particular area in issue (most notably business);
2) Incredibly low expectations leading to the acceptance of unethical behavior (usually in politics).
These aren't the only ones, just the two main ones that are basically screwing over our society.
People tend to be moral as private individuals, because there are consequences when you aren't. They will (as a minimum) act to appear ethical even if they are not actually so. There are rare individuals who will not, but they are aberrations and have psychological issues (Trump is an example). It is amazing how someone so mentally ill (because he is) can amass such power and popularity.
When you get people into groups is where you have issues. Corporations not only reduce financial liability they reduce ethical liability as well. Any collective does this unless steps are taken to avoid it.
Mistakes were made...
It's not personal, its just business...
The observation/belief that the responsibility of corporate officers is strictly fiduciary.. and that the sole purpose of corporations is to make money.
It is toxic as you can get.
Toxic. Agree. 100%. Also, 'boardroom behavior' in a way a bit analogous to 'mob behavior / mentality' in which individuals within the group will for a brief period act in ways that they never would outside the group as lone individuals. Not 'hysteria' at work, but a sort of safety in numbers, those numbers being the others present that mutually reinforce the appropriateness of the action being taken. Problem is, boardroom behavior is not brief but is an ongoing enterprise. The riot never ends! The 'mob' never disperses.
I, too, believe the idea that "corporations are people, too" is a deeply flawed one.
Human nature. What a mess!
Adding to reasons to contribute to Jose Andres' World Central Kitchen -- it receives the highest possible score from Charity Navigator -- a rare 100 out of 100 points for efficient use of funds towards operations: Rating at https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/273521132
Good of you to point that out and share the link.
RE: Alex Jones and "There should be a special place in hell for him."
Yes. Yes, indeed. Might I suggest Dante's 8th Circle of Hell (specifically for those who knowingly and willingly commit fraud) as a permanent repository for his soul, after a very brief introductory stay - oh, say a few hundred thousand lifetimes or so - in the 4th (greed).
With its near dozen 'bolgias' available to segregate fraudsters according to their particular type of offense and mete out punishment accordingly, I'm sure appropriate accommodations for Mr. Jones can be found, though he may have to be moved about from one to the other from time to time, just to make sure all the right bases are covered.
For those unfamiliar: https://www.thoughtco.com/dantes-9-circles-of-hell-741539
Thanks for link to Dante. A book I've never read but know a bit about. Now I know a bit more.
You're welcome, Sandy G. In all honesty, I pretty much slogged my way through it many, many years ago, and since then have found it much more interesting and easier to 'read about' than to actually read again! Just a language thing - or lazy brain thing - I suppose. Thank goodness for Google (not sure I ever thought I'd say that). It's been so long, I had to look it up to make sure I had my 'circles' straight (no pun intended). Figured as long as I was there, might as well share it.
I read The Inferno using a verso translation — original Italian on the recto, a prose English translation on the verso. The language is beautiful, sometimes humorous. A verso translation makes reading in the original language rewarding even for a beginner's understanding of the language.
It's a bit jarring to the modern mind to see betrayal of Caesar put equal to betrayal of Christ. Our attitude to temporal lords is now somewhat different.
Isn't it though?! I guess that many intervening years of history does have its effects on perspective.
My sentiments exactly. It's almost like you re-read it so I didn't have to. Thanks! LOL
Gosh, I like Netflix. I watch it often. I pay my monthly fee and it's worth it to me. I would never share my password with someine else because, well, isn't that wrong, cheating? Call me old-fashioned but....
When COVID hit I read an article suggesting that it might hurt Netflix in the long run. Their subscriber numbers will eventually level off (as we're now seeing) but with their all-you-can-eat business model, if you watch ten hours of Netflix per day or one hour per month, you're charged the same. So the cost of keeping their servers running and stuff would go way up if people are binging Netflix while in lockdown, but it wouldn't result in any new revenue.
As the streaming services crack down on password sharing, I'd say you'll see people start subscribing to one service per month and just keep alternating them. (Netflix in May, Disney+ in June, and so on.) Amazon Prime has a huge advantage by packaging it with their Prime shipping service.
As for Netflix itself, they're at a disadvantage in not having a massive catalog of IP accumulated over the years, so I wouldn't be surprised if they make their marriage to Sony Pictures official in the coming years. Actually, I can see Netflix and some of the "small" major studios - Sony, Paramount, Universal, etc. - merging or entering into some kind of streaming joint venture to compete with Disney and Warner. It's not unlike what happened to the music industry.
The wild card, which I think people tend to overlook, is that young people watch YouTube much more than any of the paid streaming services. At least if my kids are any indication. Thanks to my son I just discovered the Dhar Mann YouTube rabbit hole.
There's an old bankruptcy saying: "When a pig becomes a hog, it gets slaughtered." Under the old bankruptcy law, judges could refuse to release from bankruptcy people who concealed or transferred assets before filing. I believe judges still have that option.
Texas law does not treat a merger as a transfer of assets. Can’t easily claim there’s a fraudulent transfer of asset with no legal transfer. Texas law sucks.
Apparently in numerous ways, especially of late.
Given the right incentives from corporations I am sure politicians will make what Jones is doing standard operating procedure. The same way politicians are making harder and harder to sue corporations and expanding the ways they can avoid taxation.
Florida's Republicans are being confronted with constituent anger over escalating home insurance costs. Their solution? Limit insurers liabilities, shield insurers from civil litigation to enforce the contracts made with home owners, and increasing deductibles and copays for more expensive repairs. Similar to their agenda to limit medical malpractice liability as a sure way to lower consumer costs of health care. Yet another kind of "trickle down" economics.
The same happened with the Bankruptcy Code "reforms" years ago. Most of the changes favored large banks.
“Alex and Judy and Elon, oh my.” (Repeat while skipping down the road to perdition.)
JVL is a modern prophet, giving us a 21st century sermon on Greed-is-Evil. I for one enjoy attending his church.
Amen.
As long as there are idiots, there will be Alex Joneses.
I wonder, when Jones started on his career path, if he did so with intention. He's the guy on the soap box at the National Mall who somehow parlayed his delusional ravings into national exposure and millions of dollars. If you're Alex Jones, do you start your schtick as a joke, knowing no one could possibly take it seriously, then find, to your complete shock, that if you hit the virality and network dynamics lottery, you have an army of loyal adherents, and an inexhaustible pool of marks?
Also, these conspiracy weirdos like to talk about crisis actors. Have there ever been documented crisis actors, anywhere, any time, or is that just all made up? I know, I know. The fact that you've never found evidence of them is just proof of how calculating and devious these crisis actors are.
This might be an informative read:
https://web.archive.org/web/20191028183513/https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/meet-alex-jones-175845/
Jones says that when he was a teen, he read some Bircher literature and got into scrapes with local corrupt police. His parents were on friendly terms with Bircher neighbors, though he describes his parents as otherwise unpolitical. The same police busting him in his teenage years also showed up at local parties to sell drugs to his friends, and after some confrontations escalated, they threatened to frame him. At the time, Bircher lore may have struck him as the obvious explanation for the corruption of authority he'd personally witnessed.
Teens believe plenty of crazy stuff but usually grow out of it. Why didn't he? Seems like he was richly rewarded for not growing out of it, both financially and, well, spiritually — finding mentorship and community among those spreading the gospel of crazy. Even bosses' attempts to punish him by firing him for getting too wacky enriched him, getting him into digital media early.
From the interview:
"On the spiritual cancer of modern capitalism, Jones sounds more like Ralph Nader than a Fox Business channel libertarian. 'Madison Avenue makes us addicts of consumerism, using glass wampum to steal our capacity to direct our own lives,' Jones says. 'The globalists are smart and tell us sin is fun, sin is a red-devil cheerleader. No — sin is cheating other people, it’s sending troops to die in illegal wars, it’s keeping people dumb so you can control, exploit and kill them.'"
Coming from Jones, that's hilarious. Deeply sick and sad, but hilarious.
Very interesting. It's impressive how, gradually, people can become that which they claim they despise. His quote is a mix of genuine insight about Madison Avenue, paranoia, and a complete lack of introspection.
Can we call the people the Trump Pets pay to show up at his rallies "crisis actors"?
Brilliant! You have sleuthed out the elusive crisis actor.
I have no affection for Judge Judy. She is a horrible, angry, insensitive, self-righteous asshole. I literally cannot watch her show, and frankly, I don't understand how a person with any kind of compassion can countenance her behavior toward the people who prostrate themselves to her cruel show.
I used to work in an infusion center where we would get state prisoners with guards for treatment and they were always watching court shows like JJ, Judge Mathis etc., Jerry Springer or Cops. I thought it was weird. Given the opportunity, wouldn't you want to be distracted by something with creative merit that could be uplifting or at least take you our of your own circumstances-- an escape for the mind?
For people dissatisfied with the injustice of this life, a fantasy version of justice might be how they seek escapism from their own circumstances.
When I was a newlywed, I lived in a city known for its unresponsive police. We came home one day to find our place had been burgled. The theft was no emergency. Whoever had done this was long gone. So I called the police, non-emergency. I couldn't get through. Feeling like a walk, anyhow, I walked to the local station to report the burglary. The police there laughed at me. What kind of ditz seeks out neighborhood police to report a theft these days?!
After they stopped laughing, they explained I should call 911, further tying up emergency response, though I wasn't having an emergency, to report the theft. So I did. A whole year later, I finally get follow-up from the police, but by then I had fresher troubles to manage.
I'm pretty privileged. If I don't get the consolation of timely justice over a theft that didn't hurt my standard of living much anyhow, I have plenty else to occupy my mind besides fantasies of justice. The indignity of being laughed at by police for trying to report a crime stung me at first, but soon faded. Others, though, with fewer consolations? Maybe fantasy justice is their escape from their own experience of injustice and indignity.
Perhaps. But then again, if you ask most of them, they are all innocent. Except the guy in the ED the other night. He came from Elmira and was a murderer-rapist (admitted). My husband and I were also robbed, they took our phone (before the time of cellphones) so we had to call the police from our neighbors apartment. They didn't laugh at us but they also never recovered anything.
Hey Midge...would like to get your take on something I've been thinking about lately, which doesn't have a direct relation to the subject at hand here but is at least tangential. And I want to be absolutely clear this isn't a criticism of any kind but rather an honest inquiry. Recently offered a polite explanation for a comment to someone who asked for it, and for whatever reason they took it as "blame", which it was in fact not. It all went south pretty quickly, and I'm not looking for a repeat of that kind of misunderstanding.
"I'm pretty privileged." I understand your meaning in light of your subject. I could say the same thing about myself. But here's what I've been wondering about lately...
The word privilege has been used far and wide of late with regard to race, so much so that it often seems to inherently carry a negative racial overtone or connotation regardless of the circumstance in which it's used. And I think this can be detrimental to a lot of conversations (though not this one particularly). Sometimes I think 'advantage' or 'advantaged' might be a better descriptor in some circumstances because it is more 'neutral' as far as current usage goes. Consider the following...
Privilege: a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group.
Advantage: a condition or circumstance that puts one in a favorable or superior position.
Privileges are more often 'granted' rather than 'earned'. Not as much when it comes to 'advantages', since many of them must be 'earned' in one way or another. The theft you spoke of didn't affect you much economically, which took some of the 'sting' out of it. In this case, I think this is a circumstance of advantage rather than privilege, since it could apply to folks of any race who find themselves in similar economic circumstances and with "plenty else to occupy [their minds]", while the word privilege has, by my lights anyway, come to commonly denote something quite different.
I hope you can see what I'm driving at, since I don't want to drive at it too hard or too long. I've just come to think that a lot of the heat in our public discourse about certain things is unintentionally (or, sadly, sometimes intentionally) generated unnecessarily by words that are correct in many ways, but because of the negative connotations they often garner would be better replaced with something more appropriate to the specific subject / circumstance. This may not actually lower the temperature overall any time soon but might just snuff out a fire or two on occasion. And if enough of those small blazes are extinguished, perhaps the larger ones will start to die down a bit as well, and the lower temp could be more conducive to better understanding by all concerned.
Again, I want to emphasize I'm not criticizing here but only speculating and looking for an opinion. What you wrote seemed a good opportunity to broach the subject with someone who is articulate and seems to care about language (noted your comment about Inferno), and I guess I just wanted to take advantage of that. (Sometimes certain plays on words are sort of unavoidable. Sorry.) So, if you have the time and inclination to throw something back at me, not about this one particular instance so much but about my larger reference to our public discourse, I'd much appreciate it. And if not, no harm, no foul. Will just say thanks for taking the time to read this.
I get where you're coming from. "Privilege" ends up being a contentious word, partly because it's treated as a marker of tribal identity in the culture wars, partly because it may insinuate that a "privilege" is somehow not earned. On the other hand, it's standard to call a driver's license a privilege, not a right, and it is earned: I don't think the case that "privilege" denotes what's unearned is particularly strong. Even so, when people want to distinguish between earned and unearned advantages, they may use "privilege" for the latter: having distinct words for distinct ideas is handy.
Depending on who I'm talking to, I might use "privilege" or "advantage" or even "blessing" to lower the temperature. Among Bulwark subscribers, I think "privilege" is OK. The Bulwark stakes out a space where being conservative means not having to be anti-"woke" all the time, where it's possible to engage the "woke" on their own terms, and "privilege" is now famous as a "woke" word.
On a personal note, I was lucky to be born with a body like mine into a well-educated, upper-middle-class family. I was born with a tissue defect that's physically easy to detect, but still often not tested for (I wasn't tested till my 30s, after I'd had kids), even with the best medical care. It's not terrible, at least not in my case, but it does tend to cause unexplained, uncomfortable weirdness at an early age. Which in turn may result in fun stuff like medical debt, wrongful institutionalization, painkiller dependency... That I got my degree, got out of medical debt, never got hooked on narcotics, eventually got a diagnosis, and now can at least fake it (most of the time) as a semi-respectable suburban mom is all pretty lucky. Sure, it took effort and tough choices, but it was definitely made easier by other unearned advantages I just lucked into. Under any definition of "privilege", "privilege" seems to describe the good luck in my life pretty well.
Well, thanks for getting back to me on this. And I think you're right in everything you said. Especially the relationship of the meaning of privilege as it relates to luck. I've been rather privileged in that way for a few reasons myself.
Semantics can be choppy waters to navigate sometimes. But while I'm by no means a language expert of any kind, I've always been interested in language and words and how they serve as the main medium for our communication with each other, and I often find the nuances of that communication of particular interest, and like to get perspectives from people that, because of their own life experiences, may see something I take to be correct about this subject differently from me.
You noted that you may choose different words to convey the same idea, depending upon whom you're talking to. I often do the same, in the interest of trying to make a point without generating any unnecessary and distracting heat, whether it involves posting a comment or speaking to someone IRL. There are a few other places where I post comments that I often write a bit differently than I do here for a couple of reasons, so your point about that is well taken.
Thanks again for your response. I find it quite useful in my thinking on this. BTW...interesting what you said about reading Inferno using a verso translation. Have never had that kind of experience, since my only language skills are of the English variety. I'm of Italian descent, my father being 1st generation from a large Italian family in Philly. He spoke and understood Italian, but never passed that skill on to me. Wasn't much call for it in the small central Kentucky town where I was born and raised, being as ours was the only Italian name in the phone book. Which not only covered the town but the whole county. ;-)
Well, I don't believe they would feel vicariously vindicated watching any of those shows. A friend of mine was recently at her father's bedside in an emergency dept. next to a rapist-murderer attended by 4 prison guards drawing their overtime paid by my NYS taxes. This guy kept talking to her and finally she said - "Buddy I am not your friend and frankly, you lost me at the rape and murder. I don't give a shit what has happened to you. Don't talk to me." However, he continued to try to talk to her and in particular stare at her. The prison guards did nothing. He got his surgical consult and an OR date and time the very next day. (Broken jaw d/t testifying against another rapist for a lesser sentence.. what can I say? snitches get stitches) but all paid for by us. I hope they break it again.
Vindication for what goes on in prison, or what sends the most violent offenders to prison? No. But aren't prisoners and prison guards also likely to come from populations where small-claims-sized wrongs are particularly frustrating?
A fantasy of ordinary life being a bit more just, a "no-nonsense" personality whose "tough talk" seems to firmly divide right from wrong and wise from foolish? It seems possible that those less insulated from social breakdown would appreciate this fantasy more. If it comes with lurid spectacle and schadenfreude, so much the more entertaining, I suppose.
LOL! That is exactly why audiences tune in--- they love watching her dish it out to people with whom they can't identify or empathize. The cruelty IS the point.
The "guests" volunteer for it--- to be degraded in public is worth the 15 minutes of "fame" they get in return. They will be replaying recordings of their appearance for family and friends for decades. They will be played at their funerals.
Yes - the cruelty is the point. Same with the treatment of "others" - immigrants, journalists, protestors, shithole countries, etc. in TrumpWorld.
My daughter was on Judge Judy. She was in a dispute with a former friend/landlord and filed in small claims. She was invited to be on the show, and they coached her and set her up as "the good girl" and the landlord as "the bad girl." She won her case, and the show paid the small amount of funds she was rewarded.
Oh, that's how it works. They find you and coach you. Of course.
I agree and like Jerry Springer, I don't understand the attraction. Yet it seems to be playing in every doctors office I go to.
That Belloni read was <insert chef's kiss> perfection. The Puck is worth every penny all around.
Why mince words? Alex Jones is a Piece of Shit and one of many of his ilk. I don’t think Bulwark members will be offended!
I think you're correct. Don't think too many B members are offended by the occasional scatological reference to register their disgust or outright revulsion when and where appropriate, whether they're offered in plain straightforward words or dressed up a bit for the sake of politeness or perhaps emphasis.
We're all pretty much grown up here. And when it comes to this guy, it's more than appropriate. So, allow me to pile on (pun intended?):
Jones and his ilk are what the maintenance worker finds stuck to the bottom of the septic tank.
Oooh - like your pile on! The curse word is used so much, this requires me the reader to think about what you are saying.
I did this once with some high school students who were engaged in something - I think it was bullying - and I intervened. Of course, the student gave the standard defense - what I do? I didn't do anything. As a teacher, I can't say "bullshit" to a student, but that of course was my immediate response. So I wrote in the air with my index finger the capital letters B and S - backwards, of course (the B was easy, the S took some thought). That disarmed them cause they had to think about what I displayed. That gave me the upper hand.
Yes...and when straight-up profanity is overused it loses its 'value', so to speak.
I was raised by a mother in a southern state who would have lathered up the toothbrush with soap had I spoken such words within earshot of her, and I've always been thankful for that, since it helped teach me the proper way to behave and speak in 'polite company'. But it led to some interesting experiences for me as a young adult.
The shocker for me upon starting a skilled trades apprenticeship in a large General Motors shop in a northern state in the mid '70's where thousands of women worked on the shop floor wasn't that the men freely engaged in 'shop talk', but that the women did as well!! Hoo Boy! At that point in my relative innocence about the ways of the world, I didn't think women would even know a lot of those words, much less use them in mixed company!
That apprenticeship turned out to be a real education in more ways than one.
Profanity, used sparingly and smartly has power. Most people over use it. Teenagers and young adults definitely over use it. It becomes noise. Meaningless and unprovocative.
I have been a public school teacher for 25 years (English and art). Prior to that I was in the military. I know a lot of words, I have the best words--sometimes I use them to telling effect. It has a telling effect because I rarely use those words (even among only adults), the expectation is that I won't/can't use those words, and when I do use those words it is at the right time and place.
A lot of times using a "close" word when it is clear I mean the other word works just as well.
I'm sure you came across the overuse of "awesome" in your students' writing 10+ years ago. That's gone out of use, thankfully.
Yes, I stomped on that right away. What was current (and still seems to be) is saying/writing things like "more better" They also still seem to like to use the word like... It's, like, more better than before. :sigh:
Damned right! ;-) Speaking of 'noise', I noted same in conversation below.
The language teen-aged girls use today - at my Catholic school! - in "mixed company" as my mother used to call it, is atrociuos! They are not allowed to use profanity on campus, and they forget that I can hear them as they chatter in their groups in the library. Thank God that arbiter of politeness still exists! At both Catholic and public schools, teachers are still addressed as Mr., Mrs and Ms. That hasn't been done in by the culture.
My wife's a retired children's librarian from a public city library. Quite a few similar observations from her over the years. Not that a lot of kids aren't going to eventually learn to swear like sailors (I certainly did, though not from my father, who was a merchant seaman before I came along but kept his profanity to an occasional 'damn' or two). Just kind of disheartening that so many are never taught or never learn when to turn it on and off. I can hurl the F-bomb with the best of 'em when properly provoked, but after 5 decades of listening to 'shop talk' containing various levels of profanity on a daily basis, it gets a bit old after a while.
Spent a decade plus working in a shop often elbow to elbow with a guy who'd been there for many years and who was the most ill-tempered, profane and vulgar man I've ever known. It all got to be pretty much background noise after a while, but to illustrate...
A newly hired machinist was walking past where I was working at one end of the shop at the exact moment this fellow crashed his mill at the other end. The new guy stopped, turned around and listened in obvious amazement at the profanity-saturated tirade boiling over about 20 yards away. He then turned to me and said in all seriousness "I didn't know a human being could say the word f**k so many times without taking a breath."
I literally cracked up, then managed to choke out "Welcome to our world" while gesturing at the other fellows in the area, who though capable of salty language themselves, still looked askance at this miscreant's constant flow of verbal sewage.
Makes one yearn for real world Boondock Saints
And yet ordinary folks can’t discharge their student loans in bankruptcy. And no, they’re not all just kids who went to fancy schools and got degrees in art history; a lot of the times, they were people who were told by folks in certain circles (cough, cough) that if you want to do better than minimum wage, go educate yourself and get a better job!
AJ is a GRIFTER