Detour on the Yellow Brick Road, Re: Clarity, Capitalism, Corporations, Sustainability, Oh My! (Part 2)

Professor J, 


You are correct (I hope) when you say that we are not fated to either extreme. My point was that even in the most extreme cases either way those with enough incentive and power to do so, could work the system, whatever it is,  in their favor.  As for the rest of your comments on regulation, I agree wholeheartedly! Isn't part of the problem also our overly litigious society?  In days gone by Mary's parents would have been heartbroken and wished they'd kept a better eye on her. Today, however, they are likely to sue the neighbor and the company that installed the pool, along with the fence company, the manufacturer of the latch on the gate, and the city for not having an ordinance requiring the pool owner to drain it when it's not in use. Where has personal responsibility gone? What kind of society are we when we want the government to create one law after another to protect us from ourselves, our choices, and as you say, "the inherent risk of living"? 

 My reaction to the Chomsky quote is born out of frustration with hearing pundits, commentators, and the like describe the TEA party members as everything from racist to ignorant and uniformed, and worse.  This quote from from an article in The Progressive is interesting: 


"When farmers, the petit bourgeoisie, and Christian organizations joined forces with the Nazis, “the center very quickly collapsed,” Chomsky said.
No analogy is perfect, he said, but the echoes of fascism are “reverberating” today, he said.

Why is the comparison to the Nazis and fascism? Why isn't it EVER to the early American patriot? 

Here's a question for you, Professor: Is it likely that a country born out of a desire for freedom and individual liberty is going to have a different reaction to events in times of crisis than one that grew out of a feudal system? OR do all  human beings, groups, civilizations, etc. historically show the same weakness for craving order in the midst of chaos? AND isn't the US unique in history and so can an accurate comparison be made? Well, that's 3 questions, isn't it?

I noticed  in several interviews Mr. Chomsky states where he gets his information about the TEA Party members, and it isn't that he's attended a rally or protest to speak to any of them or knows any of them personally but only that he has watched news coverage (which is of course ALWAYS completely unbiased) and listens to talk radio, so perhaps his conclusions are less than fully researched.  I used the term (which I know you dislike) "left" because this is how Mr. Chomsky refers to himself routinely and how several interviewers described  him.  I can't help wonder what is so terrifying about people who esteem the ideas of Madison, Adams, and Jefferson and would like to see the country move back toward them.  I'm also a bit confused about why he should get any credibility because he lived through a specific era of history.  He may have some anecdotal things to share but other than that I'm missing the vast insight he might have  due solely to the fact that he happened to be alive then  (studying and thorough research are something else). 

He said, “Ridiculing the tea party shenanigans is a serious error,” which is ever so slightly (or maybe not) making fun of them.  I notice that he didn't say; rallies, protests, or demonstrations.  What am I to make of him using a word that carries with it the implication of deceitfulness and underhandedness? Even if he meant the more Halloween definition of the word it still carries a negative connotation. I know I'm parsing words here but when someone as intelligent as Chomsky chooses a word, one can assume that he knows the exact meaning and given the groups to whom he is speaking, that his audience does also. 


Having said all of that, I have to agree with you when you say that the elites on either "side" don't care about the "crushing debt being dumped on the future".  And I suspect that you and I would probably agree that the "elites" only have one "side" ... and it's theirs.


"Panera’s success is in no small part because it reinforces the feeling of comfort, connection, and sociability".  Maybe. I'm not sure if those are necessarily feminine aspects. Wouldn't you describe a round of drinks among close male friends at a corner bar the same way? I rather think it is a human desire. As to the "sociability" something about Panera does remind me of Starbucks so maybe you are on to something.  Hmm....but maybe it's just the Fuji Apple Chicken Salad.

I would agree with you that the " feeling of being fortunate and blessed, and feeling a desire from that blessing to share that fortune and blessing with others out of kindness and wish to help" is his sincere motive, and yes, the verse you refer to is in Luke:12.  It is the terminology I take issue with (we often have these catch phrases that enter the American lexicon and get overused and become irritating). But to parse words (again) and be a tad persnickety and literal he may be able to share, pay it forward, and pass it on. He cannot however "give back" something unless he has either taken it from someone or it has been given to him (neither of which is the case it seems as he is a successful entrepreneur). Wouldn't our friend, Ms. Rand, agree? (I would VERY much like to have heard what she would have had to say if anyone had suggested such a thing to her!)

I have much more to say on all of this, but as you see, the brevity monster has reared its ugly head once again.