I like what you say Peter very much. Dr Richardson does an excellent job presenting her analysis of historical economic factors that drive and impact our country. Her story about Andrew Carnegie is interesting. He did some good things with his pile of gold; he paid to establish libraries all over the country… particularly in rural areas.…
I like what you say Peter very much. Dr Richardson does an excellent job presenting her analysis of historical economic factors that drive and impact our country. Her story about Andrew Carnegie is interesting. He did some good things with his pile of gold; he paid to establish libraries all over the country… particularly in rural areas. I’ve seen a few of them over the years. The buildings are beautifully designed and well constructed.
We do have many saints in America, today. Perhaps they aren’t as well known as Alexei Navalny but that’s no problem. Our healthcare heroes during and after the pandemic are a prime example as are so many environmentalists working tirelessly to beat back the worst effects of air and water pollution that have gone on to warm our planet. Saints are everywhere. This is said to thank and celebrate the living ones as well as honor them.
Of course, the sacrifices of martyrs like Navalny can resonate long and loudly but I wish he didn’t have to die to achieve it. We wish him Godspeed and thank him too, for his bravery and selflessness..and his humor. He is missed and perhaps his loss will be made up by the next person willing to stand. I think it will.
Add Jimmy Carter to the litany of American saints!
‘There you go again’ sneered Reagan in their debate! Little did cheerleader Ronnie know that then President Carter would dedicate his next 50 years to serving human kind!
What about Black women who put their lives on the line? Modern examples include Fanni Willis and Stacey Abrams in Georgia and Leticia James in New York. How about Alvin Bragg, a Black DA prosecuting Trump for falsifying election records? How about Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss, Black election workers who won a defamation suit against Rudy Giuliani? These are all Blacks who have put their lives on hold and on the line to speak truth to power and justice upon destructive narcissists. Are they saints? Or are they simply Americans who keep the American spirit burning inside? Either way, they deserve mention and respect. It's an irony that the historically oppressed are now prosecuting the privileged oppressors while many of the rest of us enjoy our comfort and safety.
There are really no saints. There are, however, people of conscience and courage. When we use the word "saint" we pull the individual out of the realm of humanness, when it's far more powerful to see them as human beings among us.
Like the little black girl in the movie on PBS last night, “Akeelah and the Bee”. Her courage was palpable. It’s a “10”. Shows again tonight on PBS at 9pm.
J. Nol, I should not have used the term “saint” because it is so deeply misunderstood by most people nowadays, not excluding some who offer prayers before plaster statues—but are at least sincere in their devotion...
There was, in fact, a reason for my doing so: hearing that some religious people think Alexei Navalny will end up by being canonized…
When Pope John Paul II canonized Josemaría Escrivá de Balaguer, the Founder of Opus Dei, following a highly speeded-up process, I remarked that I never knew canonization was the Church’s Order of Lenin. The intellectual and organizational qualities of the Opus Dei founder, his foresight, his political and social acumen, are not in doubt; but it feels more than strange to find such a one in the same stable as Francis of Assisi or Juan de Yepes y Alvarez, Saint John of the Cross, even Ignacio de Loyola...
And even when we come across a case as extraordinary as that of young Thérèse Martin—Saint Thérèse of Lisieux—even more extraordinary is the Catholic Church's pomp-and-propaganda exploitation of a brief life of such intense love and austere simplicity.
Can’t help recalling the great Spanish film director Luis Buñuel calling the vast basilica dedicated to Thérèse “the Lisieux gasworks”.
Likewise the Russian Orthodox Church's problematic political saints like Vladimir, a prince of Kievan Rus, or Alexander Nevsky—a protector figure, inspiration to the country's defenders—or, given the disastrous errors of their reign and the immeasurable cost of those errors for Russia, for Europe, for the world, Saint Nicholas and Saint Alexandra... the last Tsar and Tsaritsa... At the same time, I am aware of two things: the wide overlap between the sacred and the profane in Tsarist Russia and consequently in the Russian psyche... and the disheartening awfulness of the commandeering by the Putin regime of the Russian Orthodox Church, via its KGB Patriarch, turning it into a subordinate branch of that regime, purged of many good, honest priests and genuine ordinary Christians. Perhaps unsurprising in an organization that excommunicated Leo Tolstoy in 1901… but even that made more sense than what we are seeing today…
Not content with destroying the present and future of both Russia and Ukraine with the human sacrifice of both countries’ young men, the dictator and his cabal of crazed mythomaniac ideologues have set out to co-opt for their dirty work the Russian soul itself—or at least the aspect of it that empowers and gives meaning to spiritual core of the Orthodox Church.
To conclude, what I see behind the word "SAINT" is not someone radically different from the rest of us but simply one who has expressed all the finer human qualities to the limit of their potential and, in so doing, found her or himself.
That said, I’d rather seek terms for such heroic figures other than those long abused by priests for purposes of religious propaganda. Fundamentally, we’re talking here of a phenomenon quite beyond the confines of organized religion.
"I see behind this word is not someone radically different from the rest of us but simply one who has expressed all the finer human qualities to the limit of their potential and, in so doing, found her or himself." With this statement I agree. People like these demonstrate what is possible in being human, and those others you referred to of course, showed us the depths humans can fall to as well.
Jerry, I had the people you mention very much in mind when I was writing. I, for example, am immensely impressed by the shining, exemplary qualities of Stacy Abrams. And there are plenty of others.
Well, I am going to have to disagree with you on Fani WIllis. It is becoming clearer and clearer that she failed to observe proper decorum for someone with such an important office and as a result, a carefully structured criminal trial against the Trump minions is now likely to go off the rails because of her own self-interest. This is in GREAT contrast to Leticia James who has done a superb job of carefully and methodically bringing the appropriate charges against Trump and so far, winning all of her cases. On the face of it, WIllis has probably so jeopardized her attempted prosecution that it will fail at least for the next year or so. In the end, I expect her to be recused at least from the case she brought against the Trump rabble (along with her paramour Wade) and that will leave the Georgia case, which started out looking like the best laid plan, up in smoke, at least for the foreseeable future. Once Georgia figures out where to send the case, and if they choose another DA who will put in the effort, the case might get back on track (assuming Trump is not reelected in November) but it won't happen in 2024 in time for the upcoming election, sigh. Nothing she has done will, it appears, effect Trump's guilt or not, but it will create a huge and unnecessary delay.
Jim, I agree that we disagree on Willis. Her personal affair really has no bearing under her suitability to prosecute the case under Georgia law. I was concerned about this the same as you but then realized that the folks who are pursuing this case are doing so in spite of the harassment and threats they received and continue to. If they are thrown together in an intense case and their feeling bloom, that is human. Blaming them for human impulses that logically have no conflict with the mission is blaming the victim. While on the one hand the judge should have already thrown this sideshow out, on the other, he's allowed all this to preserve the record for the inevitable appeal. Yes, all this is a complication, but it doesn't take away from Willis' bravery and competence.
To repeat, Willis nor Wade got rich from their prosecution of Trump and whatever relationship they actually had does not present a conflict of interest. I'd actually be quite shocked if McAfee rules against Willis. He showed a lot of IMpatience toward the defense's arguments during the evidentiary hearing and the Trump team's key witness, Bradley, testified he was only speculating. There's no "there: there.
Yep you are right, we have to disagree. Prosecuting attorneys MUST be held to a MUCH higher standard than anyone else involved in a lawsuit except the judge. Prosecutors do NOT represent a person or company, they represent all of us. They are NOT there to find anyone guilty, they are there to ensure justice is done. They can NOT under any circumstances even APPEAR to be biased or seeking some other benefit. My biggest concern about this is twofold: (1) throughout this entire charade, Willis and Wade have repeatedly concealed the full extent of their relationship and then grudgingly given ground as the whole story came out in the press That greatly diminishes their credibility IMHO. And district attorneys MUST have INCREDIBLE credibility or they are damaged goods. (2) it seems clear now that their actual relationship began before Wade was appointed to his position on the case, and (a) he is apparently not highly qualified for the role and (b) he and Willis have been able to share the "benefits" conferred on him by being appointed, i.e., $650,000 paid in approx 18 months, which is, at least in Georgia, a LOT of money for a government attorney (Willis doesn't make anywhere near that much as DA). This leads me to the at least POSSIBLE conclusion that they are both benefitinng at the expense of the state.
As I said, NONE of this has ANYTHING to do with the actual case in terms of Trump/et al's guilt, but unfortunately that ship has sailed and now whatever they do that might be potentially a conflict of interest is involved in the case, like it or not. She should never have appointed him to the positionn and now they got caught.
Game over, in my book. They both need to move on, as their credibility, regardless of whether or not there IS a "there" there, is completely shot and they can no longer prosecute this case.
And remember I was a HUGE supporter of the case WIllis was bringing against Trump. So this feeling I have is TOTALLY grounded in my belief about the proper execution of the laws, and their ability to do that now, not whether they did anything "legally wrong". That bar is NOT the bar they needed to clear. It was much higher and they missed by a mile, IMHO.
Jon, than you for your opinion. So, let me ask you: if Willis stays in and gets the the RICO conviction against Trump and his co-conspirators, will you accept that win?
Oh absolutely! I think the two issues have nothing to do with each other. The entanglement between Willis and Wade has nothing whatsoever to do with the case at all, but I just believe (based on various readings of the relevant law) that they created an appeearance of impropriety that can only be appropriately addressed by them recusing themselves or by the judge removing them from the case. I do NOT think that their continuing in the case (or one of them) creates any actual conflict, but that is NOT what is required for recusal in most US jurisdictions. Their entanglement clearly presents (to me anyway) an appearance of impropriety that makes it difficult to continue in the case.
I do think that it will be such a "focus" that it will make it HARDER for the prosecution to get a conviction and that is another reason I think they should be recused. That is why we have laws against conflict of interest or even the APPEARANCE of conflict. But if, as you posit, the judge decides its "okay" for them (or one of them) to continue, I am fine with that although I think it will be erroneous and MIGHT cause a conviction to be overturned on appeal which would be another problem I could foresee in the future.
Yes, wonderful about the libraries ... a true gift for the U.S. But .... not good to his workers, fearing that paying them too much would corrupt them! Yikes!
well paid workers circulates immediately back into the economy with consumer demand, property acquisition, homes, appliances on and on. That translates into goods and services stimulation, translates finally into great profits. What's the big problem????
Yes. Carnegie was very much a capitalist of his time. He didn't just believe what he proclaimed, he acted accordingly.
After him came benefactors like Ford with the most dreadful downsides.
More recently, we have seen major philanthropists like Bill Gates and seriously motivated men of immense talent like Steve Jobs.
The case of Konosuke Matsushita in Japan goes, perhaps, even deeper, being very much here and now, yet rooted in an older, more seasoned culture, one that accords greater importance to balance and harmony in all things. I'm sure he and other leading figures of his generation will have learned much from the catastrophes brought upon his country and Asia by the hubris and excesses of Japan's prewar military regime.
But generally speaking what we have been seeing in the past half-century is the rise of insatiable, unchecked greed, vanity, meanness and stupidity in scale with the number of zeros that represent billionaires' fortunes, alongside a bigger and bigger tonnage of the outsize bath toys these unfortunates call "yachts".
These poor so-and-sos are toppling society with their thieving from the foundations to build their top-heavy sybaritic paradise...
I forgot to mention the very special case of George Soros, who has an extraordinary, perhaps unique record, an heroic one, in that not one of his good deeds has been forgiven by the Great and Good or by the Great and Bad.
The perfect scapegoat for all the world's extremists, oppressors and anti-Semites, always of the Right, sometimes of the Left, hated, demonized and blamed by Orban, by Putin, by Trump, by Netanyahu... for anything and everything wrong with the world, everything from bad weather to financial crashes...
Look at this item on a film biopic made by the son of Bob Dylan!
If only, if only USians could get it through our collective head that democracy and capitalism are not identical, or even inextricable. In fact, they run in separate lanes. They *can* support and strengthen each other, but they can also be at odds -- and when they're at odds, as in the U.S. since the beginning of the Reagan administration, capitalism tends to hollow out democracy. (Thank you, Citizens United.)
I and a friend once wrote a letter to the Editor of the Economist who believed that capitalism must inevitably be accompanied by democracy in China, whereas we did not.
He did not publish our letter but did us the honor of answering it.
After watching what happened after the Soviet Union disintegrated and, later, the utter stupidity of promoting "regime change" in Iraq, I'm amazed that anyone continues to *really* believe it. OTOH, it's become clear that a significant chunk of the capitalist crowd isn't all that wild about democracy either.
I wonder if he fully believed, or if this was a way to justify his rapacious behavior. The idea that there's something special about those who accumulated mounds of money and power, is so like all the white privileged men who can't see how much they were helped by an unfair system. There is no such thing as making it on your own merit.
Not to their extent, no. The only idea I can come up with for thinking you alone have made all your wealth, without considering ALL those who worked to make it happen, is greed. Plain and simple.
My favorite Justice Thomas who used the Affirmative Action program has or wants to end it. Nothing like climbing the ladder and then pull it up after you.
However, I believe I understand his dilemma. While I agree with Affirmative Action to try to right the wrongs of discrimination, it can put the individual person receiving the help in a uncomfortable position. If you are perceived as benefitting from Affirmative Action, are you also seen as someone who isn't really capable of doing the work to get there? This is one way that racism is so insidious. Either you can't do the work because you belong to an "inferior" race, or you got to get there because of the boost you got from a government program and not your own efforts. The reality is that we all benefit from the system in some way, and nobody ever is a success only because of their own individual efforts. The system just makes it easier for some of us than the rest.
The belief that people who amass wealth are somehow blessed by a higher power and those who are poor are being punished for something is older than any religion. In fact it was, before empire was allowed to remove him from Christianity, one of the things Jesus spoke out against the most.
Peter B: It's true that Bill Gates has given a lot of money to philanthropic causes, but there has also been extensive criticism of him (and other gazillionaire philanthropists) because much of their philanthropy is directed to causes of their own preference rather than of general well being. One that comes to mind is Gates's support of "education reform" based on ever more infiltration of technology into the education process. Guess who benefits most from that, whereas whether such innovations benefit students is still in question.
I think it's also useful to remember the scope of our civilization. I recall that in Gate's annual letter from a couple of years ago he responded to the suggestion that he eliminate our nation's homelessness problem with his vast fortune. He pointed out that the entire Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation would only be able to operate the L.A. County school system for 2-3 months. Private philanthropy doesn't begin to satisfy the needs that government struggles with every single day.
Indeed. A part of every dollar that swells the use of technology in the public school system goes to Micro$oft and then back into Bill's pocketbook. This isn't the WORST thing that could happen (putting dollars into Elon Musk's pocketbook would vastly outrank that at least IMHO LOL). I personally believe that technology does help most students to some level, but I am not at all sure the cost-benefit equation is totally positive. This should be studied further in order to figure out the proper way it should be handled in the future. One major concern is that when money is granted to purchase computers, there is rarely an equivalent grant to fund both maintenance and an endowment to support future upgrades. Computers obsolesce quite rapidly as it turns out and many schools end up stuck with very old computers after 3-5 years with no funds to buy new ones. There should be a requirement that any grant for purchase of new equipment be paired with an endowment grant to help support upgrades in the future.
I didn't go into this, but thanks for clarifying an important point. I didn't want to associate Gates with the pernicious ideological nonsenses from another age propagated by Henry Ford and still, alas, with us. But it is quite true that the man's no doubt excellent intentions are vitiated by built-in techie prejudices and blind spots. A certain scientistic absolutism. He does what he can, but this basically good work may sometimes have reinforced corporate power and the abuses that arise therefrom.
Peter Burnett, I don't see how Gates or Jobs are evil and selfish. Matsoshita I know only a little about, and his philosophy seems to he a derivative of Japanese culture, and I can see how that could be distorted to create a toxic workaholic culture, but I don't know if he was evil. I ask this because your comment leads me to think you feel that all ultra wealthy people must be greedy and evil, which sound either religious or Marxist.
I suspect you're not at all a zealot, so I'm wondering how you've come to this opinion. If I'm wrong in my interpretation, just tell me I'm full of shit. I won't take offense, and still buy you a beer or a soda just to have a serious conversation.
Thank you, TC. Paying their responsible share of taxes will still leave them with plenty to spread around according to their interests and interpretation of what society needs. Their contributions are welcome but the first responsibility is to contribute fully to the public good via taxation. Of course, there are fair criticisms of government spending, but it is the surest way to lift everyone, not just those on the radar of the non elected super wealthy. (Not to mention that not all the super wealthy consider themselves trustees of funds for societal welfare ala Carnegie …. Hence the even greater need for fair taxes.)
If there were a 100% tax on everything above a certain amount, the rich would have to find different ways to compete with each other rather than increasing their takings.
Not sure about 100% tax, but we have (I think) mostly forgotten that only a "short" time ago (1950s) the top tax rate was 95% (I believe after $5,000,000 earned per year). People extol the expansion of the middle class in the 50s which indeed happened, partially because of the post-WWII boom but also because of the top marginal tax rate which discouraged significant capital hoarding as it didn't make all that much sense. Once this was dropped over the next 30 years, first to 90%, then 75% then 50% and finally into the 30s in the 1990s, the benefits to hoarding capital became much greater. And thus the number of billionaires (which was very low until then) started to grow astronomically. With the concurrent reduction in inheritance taxes, large amounts of capital became centered in a very small number of hands, compared to the 1950s.
Even a return to a top tax rate of 75% would dramatically reduce the amount of accumulated capital the richest part of society would be able to keep, and a much larger part of those earnings would make their way into (wait for it!) the federal and state budgets! The rich would actually pay more while the poor would be able to pay less.
No, Jerry, you have totally, but totally, misread me, and I wonder how or where I can have been so unclear that this should have been possible.
Ah... now I understand... I mentioned Gates and Jobs immediately after Henry Ford who, as I said, had serious downsides including anti-Semitism that got him involved with Hitler. At the same time as remembering the company in which Ford's political and social beliefs, including eugenism -- beliefs all too common in men of his time -- landed him up, I am very aware of the man's great positive contributions to America and to the world...
I'll correct the layout now to eliminate that misunderstanding.
I like what you say Peter very much. Dr Richardson does an excellent job presenting her analysis of historical economic factors that drive and impact our country. Her story about Andrew Carnegie is interesting. He did some good things with his pile of gold; he paid to establish libraries all over the country… particularly in rural areas. I’ve seen a few of them over the years. The buildings are beautifully designed and well constructed.
We do have many saints in America, today. Perhaps they aren’t as well known as Alexei Navalny but that’s no problem. Our healthcare heroes during and after the pandemic are a prime example as are so many environmentalists working tirelessly to beat back the worst effects of air and water pollution that have gone on to warm our planet. Saints are everywhere. This is said to thank and celebrate the living ones as well as honor them.
Of course, the sacrifices of martyrs like Navalny can resonate long and loudly but I wish he didn’t have to die to achieve it. We wish him Godspeed and thank him too, for his bravery and selflessness..and his humor. He is missed and perhaps his loss will be made up by the next person willing to stand. I think it will.
Add Jimmy Carter to the litany of American saints!
‘There you go again’ sneered Reagan in their debate! Little did cheerleader Ronnie know that then President Carter would dedicate his next 50 years to serving human kind!
Keep ‘going’ Jimmy!
Jimmy Carter is the first person I thought of also when thinking of American saints.
What about Black women who put their lives on the line? Modern examples include Fanni Willis and Stacey Abrams in Georgia and Leticia James in New York. How about Alvin Bragg, a Black DA prosecuting Trump for falsifying election records? How about Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss, Black election workers who won a defamation suit against Rudy Giuliani? These are all Blacks who have put their lives on hold and on the line to speak truth to power and justice upon destructive narcissists. Are they saints? Or are they simply Americans who keep the American spirit burning inside? Either way, they deserve mention and respect. It's an irony that the historically oppressed are now prosecuting the privileged oppressors while many of the rest of us enjoy our comfort and safety.
There are really no saints. There are, however, people of conscience and courage. When we use the word "saint" we pull the individual out of the realm of humanness, when it's far more powerful to see them as human beings among us.
Like the little black girl in the movie on PBS last night, “Akeelah and the Bee”. Her courage was palpable. It’s a “10”. Shows again tonight on PBS at 9pm.
J. Nol, I should not have used the term “saint” because it is so deeply misunderstood by most people nowadays, not excluding some who offer prayers before plaster statues—but are at least sincere in their devotion...
There was, in fact, a reason for my doing so: hearing that some religious people think Alexei Navalny will end up by being canonized…
When Pope John Paul II canonized Josemaría Escrivá de Balaguer, the Founder of Opus Dei, following a highly speeded-up process, I remarked that I never knew canonization was the Church’s Order of Lenin. The intellectual and organizational qualities of the Opus Dei founder, his foresight, his political and social acumen, are not in doubt; but it feels more than strange to find such a one in the same stable as Francis of Assisi or Juan de Yepes y Alvarez, Saint John of the Cross, even Ignacio de Loyola...
And even when we come across a case as extraordinary as that of young Thérèse Martin—Saint Thérèse of Lisieux—even more extraordinary is the Catholic Church's pomp-and-propaganda exploitation of a brief life of such intense love and austere simplicity.
Can’t help recalling the great Spanish film director Luis Buñuel calling the vast basilica dedicated to Thérèse “the Lisieux gasworks”.
Likewise the Russian Orthodox Church's problematic political saints like Vladimir, a prince of Kievan Rus, or Alexander Nevsky—a protector figure, inspiration to the country's defenders—or, given the disastrous errors of their reign and the immeasurable cost of those errors for Russia, for Europe, for the world, Saint Nicholas and Saint Alexandra... the last Tsar and Tsaritsa... At the same time, I am aware of two things: the wide overlap between the sacred and the profane in Tsarist Russia and consequently in the Russian psyche... and the disheartening awfulness of the commandeering by the Putin regime of the Russian Orthodox Church, via its KGB Patriarch, turning it into a subordinate branch of that regime, purged of many good, honest priests and genuine ordinary Christians. Perhaps unsurprising in an organization that excommunicated Leo Tolstoy in 1901… but even that made more sense than what we are seeing today…
Not content with destroying the present and future of both Russia and Ukraine with the human sacrifice of both countries’ young men, the dictator and his cabal of crazed mythomaniac ideologues have set out to co-opt for their dirty work the Russian soul itself—or at least the aspect of it that empowers and gives meaning to spiritual core of the Orthodox Church.
To conclude, what I see behind the word "SAINT" is not someone radically different from the rest of us but simply one who has expressed all the finer human qualities to the limit of their potential and, in so doing, found her or himself.
That said, I’d rather seek terms for such heroic figures other than those long abused by priests for purposes of religious propaganda. Fundamentally, we’re talking here of a phenomenon quite beyond the confines of organized religion.
"I see behind this word is not someone radically different from the rest of us but simply one who has expressed all the finer human qualities to the limit of their potential and, in so doing, found her or himself." With this statement I agree. People like these demonstrate what is possible in being human, and those others you referred to of course, showed us the depths humans can fall to as well.
They have been standing up to bullies for generations. It matters! 💪🏼💪🏼💪🏼
Preparation, strength, and wisdom makes for heros and sheros❤️
Jerry, I had the people you mention very much in mind when I was writing. I, for example, am immensely impressed by the shining, exemplary qualities of Stacy Abrams. And there are plenty of others.
Well, I am going to have to disagree with you on Fani WIllis. It is becoming clearer and clearer that she failed to observe proper decorum for someone with such an important office and as a result, a carefully structured criminal trial against the Trump minions is now likely to go off the rails because of her own self-interest. This is in GREAT contrast to Leticia James who has done a superb job of carefully and methodically bringing the appropriate charges against Trump and so far, winning all of her cases. On the face of it, WIllis has probably so jeopardized her attempted prosecution that it will fail at least for the next year or so. In the end, I expect her to be recused at least from the case she brought against the Trump rabble (along with her paramour Wade) and that will leave the Georgia case, which started out looking like the best laid plan, up in smoke, at least for the foreseeable future. Once Georgia figures out where to send the case, and if they choose another DA who will put in the effort, the case might get back on track (assuming Trump is not reelected in November) but it won't happen in 2024 in time for the upcoming election, sigh. Nothing she has done will, it appears, effect Trump's guilt or not, but it will create a huge and unnecessary delay.
Jim, I agree that we disagree on Willis. Her personal affair really has no bearing under her suitability to prosecute the case under Georgia law. I was concerned about this the same as you but then realized that the folks who are pursuing this case are doing so in spite of the harassment and threats they received and continue to. If they are thrown together in an intense case and their feeling bloom, that is human. Blaming them for human impulses that logically have no conflict with the mission is blaming the victim. While on the one hand the judge should have already thrown this sideshow out, on the other, he's allowed all this to preserve the record for the inevitable appeal. Yes, all this is a complication, but it doesn't take away from Willis' bravery and competence.
To repeat, Willis nor Wade got rich from their prosecution of Trump and whatever relationship they actually had does not present a conflict of interest. I'd actually be quite shocked if McAfee rules against Willis. He showed a lot of IMpatience toward the defense's arguments during the evidentiary hearing and the Trump team's key witness, Bradley, testified he was only speculating. There's no "there: there.
Yep you are right, we have to disagree. Prosecuting attorneys MUST be held to a MUCH higher standard than anyone else involved in a lawsuit except the judge. Prosecutors do NOT represent a person or company, they represent all of us. They are NOT there to find anyone guilty, they are there to ensure justice is done. They can NOT under any circumstances even APPEAR to be biased or seeking some other benefit. My biggest concern about this is twofold: (1) throughout this entire charade, Willis and Wade have repeatedly concealed the full extent of their relationship and then grudgingly given ground as the whole story came out in the press That greatly diminishes their credibility IMHO. And district attorneys MUST have INCREDIBLE credibility or they are damaged goods. (2) it seems clear now that their actual relationship began before Wade was appointed to his position on the case, and (a) he is apparently not highly qualified for the role and (b) he and Willis have been able to share the "benefits" conferred on him by being appointed, i.e., $650,000 paid in approx 18 months, which is, at least in Georgia, a LOT of money for a government attorney (Willis doesn't make anywhere near that much as DA). This leads me to the at least POSSIBLE conclusion that they are both benefitinng at the expense of the state.
As I said, NONE of this has ANYTHING to do with the actual case in terms of Trump/et al's guilt, but unfortunately that ship has sailed and now whatever they do that might be potentially a conflict of interest is involved in the case, like it or not. She should never have appointed him to the positionn and now they got caught.
Game over, in my book. They both need to move on, as their credibility, regardless of whether or not there IS a "there" there, is completely shot and they can no longer prosecute this case.
And remember I was a HUGE supporter of the case WIllis was bringing against Trump. So this feeling I have is TOTALLY grounded in my belief about the proper execution of the laws, and their ability to do that now, not whether they did anything "legally wrong". That bar is NOT the bar they needed to clear. It was much higher and they missed by a mile, IMHO.
Jon, than you for your opinion. So, let me ask you: if Willis stays in and gets the the RICO conviction against Trump and his co-conspirators, will you accept that win?
Oh absolutely! I think the two issues have nothing to do with each other. The entanglement between Willis and Wade has nothing whatsoever to do with the case at all, but I just believe (based on various readings of the relevant law) that they created an appeearance of impropriety that can only be appropriately addressed by them recusing themselves or by the judge removing them from the case. I do NOT think that their continuing in the case (or one of them) creates any actual conflict, but that is NOT what is required for recusal in most US jurisdictions. Their entanglement clearly presents (to me anyway) an appearance of impropriety that makes it difficult to continue in the case.
I do think that it will be such a "focus" that it will make it HARDER for the prosecution to get a conviction and that is another reason I think they should be recused. That is why we have laws against conflict of interest or even the APPEARANCE of conflict. But if, as you posit, the judge decides its "okay" for them (or one of them) to continue, I am fine with that although I think it will be erroneous and MIGHT cause a conviction to be overturned on appeal which would be another problem I could foresee in the future.
Yes, wonderful about the libraries ... a true gift for the U.S. But .... not good to his workers, fearing that paying them too much would corrupt them! Yikes!
well paid workers circulates immediately back into the economy with consumer demand, property acquisition, homes, appliances on and on. That translates into goods and services stimulation, translates finally into great profits. What's the big problem????
His workers might be starving but they could borrow books to improve their minds.
[Edited for greater clarity]
Yes. Carnegie was very much a capitalist of his time. He didn't just believe what he proclaimed, he acted accordingly.
After him came benefactors like Ford with the most dreadful downsides.
More recently, we have seen major philanthropists like Bill Gates and seriously motivated men of immense talent like Steve Jobs.
The case of Konosuke Matsushita in Japan goes, perhaps, even deeper, being very much here and now, yet rooted in an older, more seasoned culture, one that accords greater importance to balance and harmony in all things. I'm sure he and other leading figures of his generation will have learned much from the catastrophes brought upon his country and Asia by the hubris and excesses of Japan's prewar military regime.
But generally speaking what we have been seeing in the past half-century is the rise of insatiable, unchecked greed, vanity, meanness and stupidity in scale with the number of zeros that represent billionaires' fortunes, alongside a bigger and bigger tonnage of the outsize bath toys these unfortunates call "yachts".
These poor so-and-sos are toppling society with their thieving from the foundations to build their top-heavy sybaritic paradise...
I forgot to mention the very special case of George Soros, who has an extraordinary, perhaps unique record, an heroic one, in that not one of his good deeds has been forgiven by the Great and Good or by the Great and Bad.
The perfect scapegoat for all the world's extremists, oppressors and anti-Semites, always of the Right, sometimes of the Left, hated, demonized and blamed by Orban, by Putin, by Trump, by Netanyahu... for anything and everything wrong with the world, everything from bad weather to financial crashes...
Look at this item on a film biopic made by the son of Bob Dylan!
https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/2021-06-16/ty-article-magazine/why-do-so-many-hate-george-soros/0000017f-f00c-d8a1-a5ff-f08e13830000
Wait wait! Don't Tell Me! You mean George Soros is NOT responsible for all of the bad weather we are having?
I am stunned!
If only, if only USians could get it through our collective head that democracy and capitalism are not identical, or even inextricable. In fact, they run in separate lanes. They *can* support and strengthen each other, but they can also be at odds -- and when they're at odds, as in the U.S. since the beginning of the Reagan administration, capitalism tends to hollow out democracy. (Thank you, Citizens United.)
I and a friend once wrote a letter to the Editor of the Economist who believed that capitalism must inevitably be accompanied by democracy in China, whereas we did not.
He did not publish our letter but did us the honor of answering it.
Within a year, his view switched to ours.
After watching what happened after the Soviet Union disintegrated and, later, the utter stupidity of promoting "regime change" in Iraq, I'm amazed that anyone continues to *really* believe it. OTOH, it's become clear that a significant chunk of the capitalist crowd isn't all that wild about democracy either.
No, Susanna, they've opted for H2SO4 Conc. version of capitalism. Organized crime.
I wonder if he fully believed, or if this was a way to justify his rapacious behavior. The idea that there's something special about those who accumulated mounds of money and power, is so like all the white privileged men who can't see how much they were helped by an unfair system. There is no such thing as making it on your own merit.
Not to their extent, no. The only idea I can come up with for thinking you alone have made all your wealth, without considering ALL those who worked to make it happen, is greed. Plain and simple.
Exactly.
My favorite Justice Thomas who used the Affirmative Action program has or wants to end it. Nothing like climbing the ladder and then pull it up after you.
I am assuming, Karen, that "My favorite Justice Thomas" is dripping with sarcasm. I certainly HOPE so LOL!
However, I believe I understand his dilemma. While I agree with Affirmative Action to try to right the wrongs of discrimination, it can put the individual person receiving the help in a uncomfortable position. If you are perceived as benefitting from Affirmative Action, are you also seen as someone who isn't really capable of doing the work to get there? This is one way that racism is so insidious. Either you can't do the work because you belong to an "inferior" race, or you got to get there because of the boost you got from a government program and not your own efforts. The reality is that we all benefit from the system in some way, and nobody ever is a success only because of their own individual efforts. The system just makes it easier for some of us than the rest.
The belief that people who amass wealth are somehow blessed by a higher power and those who are poor are being punished for something is older than any religion. In fact it was, before empire was allowed to remove him from Christianity, one of the things Jesus spoke out against the most.
Peter, you are on a roll this am. Thank you.
Peter B: It's true that Bill Gates has given a lot of money to philanthropic causes, but there has also been extensive criticism of him (and other gazillionaire philanthropists) because much of their philanthropy is directed to causes of their own preference rather than of general well being. One that comes to mind is Gates's support of "education reform" based on ever more infiltration of technology into the education process. Guess who benefits most from that, whereas whether such innovations benefit students is still in question.
I think it's also useful to remember the scope of our civilization. I recall that in Gate's annual letter from a couple of years ago he responded to the suggestion that he eliminate our nation's homelessness problem with his vast fortune. He pointed out that the entire Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation would only be able to operate the L.A. County school system for 2-3 months. Private philanthropy doesn't begin to satisfy the needs that government struggles with every single day.
Indeed. A part of every dollar that swells the use of technology in the public school system goes to Micro$oft and then back into Bill's pocketbook. This isn't the WORST thing that could happen (putting dollars into Elon Musk's pocketbook would vastly outrank that at least IMHO LOL). I personally believe that technology does help most students to some level, but I am not at all sure the cost-benefit equation is totally positive. This should be studied further in order to figure out the proper way it should be handled in the future. One major concern is that when money is granted to purchase computers, there is rarely an equivalent grant to fund both maintenance and an endowment to support future upgrades. Computers obsolesce quite rapidly as it turns out and many schools end up stuck with very old computers after 3-5 years with no funds to buy new ones. There should be a requirement that any grant for purchase of new equipment be paired with an endowment grant to help support upgrades in the future.
I didn't go into this, but thanks for clarifying an important point. I didn't want to associate Gates with the pernicious ideological nonsenses from another age propagated by Henry Ford and still, alas, with us. But it is quite true that the man's no doubt excellent intentions are vitiated by built-in techie prejudices and blind spots. A certain scientistic absolutism. He does what he can, but this basically good work may sometimes have reinforced corporate power and the abuses that arise therefrom.
Peter Burnett, I don't see how Gates or Jobs are evil and selfish. Matsoshita I know only a little about, and his philosophy seems to he a derivative of Japanese culture, and I can see how that could be distorted to create a toxic workaholic culture, but I don't know if he was evil. I ask this because your comment leads me to think you feel that all ultra wealthy people must be greedy and evil, which sound either religious or Marxist.
I suspect you're not at all a zealot, so I'm wondering how you've come to this opinion. If I'm wrong in my interpretation, just tell me I'm full of shit. I won't take offense, and still buy you a beer or a soda just to have a serious conversation.
Eat the rich. Lightly sauteed with a nice Chianti.
Proper taxation may make them "less rich," but they'll still be rich.
Thank you, TC. Paying their responsible share of taxes will still leave them with plenty to spread around according to their interests and interpretation of what society needs. Their contributions are welcome but the first responsibility is to contribute fully to the public good via taxation. Of course, there are fair criticisms of government spending, but it is the surest way to lift everyone, not just those on the radar of the non elected super wealthy. (Not to mention that not all the super wealthy consider themselves trustees of funds for societal welfare ala Carnegie …. Hence the even greater need for fair taxes.)
Absolutely!
If there were a 100% tax on everything above a certain amount, the rich would have to find different ways to compete with each other rather than increasing their takings.
Not sure about 100% tax, but we have (I think) mostly forgotten that only a "short" time ago (1950s) the top tax rate was 95% (I believe after $5,000,000 earned per year). People extol the expansion of the middle class in the 50s which indeed happened, partially because of the post-WWII boom but also because of the top marginal tax rate which discouraged significant capital hoarding as it didn't make all that much sense. Once this was dropped over the next 30 years, first to 90%, then 75% then 50% and finally into the 30s in the 1990s, the benefits to hoarding capital became much greater. And thus the number of billionaires (which was very low until then) started to grow astronomically. With the concurrent reduction in inheritance taxes, large amounts of capital became centered in a very small number of hands, compared to the 1950s.
Even a return to a top tax rate of 75% would dramatically reduce the amount of accumulated capital the richest part of society would be able to keep, and a much larger part of those earnings would make their way into (wait for it!) the federal and state budgets! The rich would actually pay more while the poor would be able to pay less.
What a concept!
Sad that 1950s history isn’t better known. Sad, too, that many people see their taxes as “theft” rather than payment for services they use.
No, Jerry, you have totally, but totally, misread me, and I wonder how or where I can have been so unclear that this should have been possible.
Ah... now I understand... I mentioned Gates and Jobs immediately after Henry Ford who, as I said, had serious downsides including anti-Semitism that got him involved with Hitler. At the same time as remembering the company in which Ford's political and social beliefs, including eugenism -- beliefs all too common in men of his time -- landed him up, I am very aware of the man's great positive contributions to America and to the world...
I'll correct the layout now to eliminate that misunderstanding.
Yes and yes.