But what really prompts this posting (Thank you Jack Sands, for the space) is the ignoble way some in the media are already undermining an authority not yet manifest in going after president-elect Obama. “Obama recession,” they’re saying. Huh?! Obama has just barely put his cabinet in place, is just barely ascending the “bully pulpit,” and Wall Street is already discounting equities, and projecting blame on the newly elected. Oh well, as they say in Britain: (President) Bush is forgotten but not gone.”

I understand the wealthy (many of our clients) want a flat tax rate, nothing progressive for them, a 17% flat tax rate would do. That saves them a bundle, but what about the middle class? The poor? I understand the fear they have of a “leftest” increase in the capital gains tax rates. All personal perspectives, mind you. Very personal. To heck with the rest of the culture “out there.” “We have to protect our own.” The phrase my fellow Americans takes on a whole new meaning.

But to the point of this posting. Below, I list quotations issued from a few bright minds concerning unrestrained capitalism and the unwholesome mixing of private capital with government. Notably, in their recent campaigns for presidency, Barack Obama and John Mccain spent nearly $1 billion. Who’d they get these sums from? What may these contributors want and get from the future president? Worse yet, consider the use of public funds to heal the wounds of private capital–the current use of public money as a “back stop” to bail out corrupt investment bankers. Most importantly, see Thomas Jefferson’s concern over the dangers of a politically uninformed body politic.*

I am in accord with all expressions below, particularly those emphasizing the responsibility of citizens to inform themselves, then to act.

I might have my CFA, but I’m also, it turns out, a believer in a democratic republic, one who, nevertheless, will try to keep his rich clients rich, hopeful that they share my values, even as I remain dubious of that possibility in the near future. I’m perhaps like many of you, still a few feet away from becoming a Public Citizen.

In 1816 Thomas Jefferson warned of “a single and splendid government of an aristocracy founded on banking institutions and moneyed incorporations” which would mean “the end of democracy and freedom”.

A few decades later in 1864, Abraham Lincoln warned: “I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . . corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.” Thirteen years later, the Gilded Age commenced, a period of growth and vast corruption.

Albert Einstein: “… under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.”

Noam Chomsky: “The press is owned by wealthy people who only want certain things to reach the public.”

Jefferson again: “Ignorance and sound self-government could not exist together: the one destroys the other. A despotic government could restrain its citizens and deprive the people of their liberties only while they were ignorant.”

*Jefferson could never completely separate education from government. With the fullest faith in the ability of man to govern himself, Jefferson nonetheless realized that self-government could be assumed successfully only by an enlightened people.

Palisades lake through trees

By the way, Keith, “Fuel tax thing”? Actually, good choice. Olbermann, by choosing one word, thing, tells us what he thinks of Senator Clinton’s strategy in a trenchant way. Clinton’s proposal is a thing, nothing more. Of course Keith seldom if ever offers just a word in his observations and commentaries. For this reason, the choice of one word, thing, makes his point concisely.

impacted, adj. wedged in firmly, embedded; pressed tightly together; overcrowded; of a tooth which is unable to fully erupt (Dentistry). Or, A condition where demand for a particular service, commodity or space is in severely short supply or high demand. (Concise Oxford Dictionary).

A Reflective Mary

“…how to establish ordered solutions to social problems that come up without having to go to a top/down authority structure… (and that would be) community-based solutions (such as) Wikipedia, something self-correcting without abusing the power that accrue to themselves.”

While the thought provokes serious reflection, I feel Professor Zittrain put too much “mustard on it” not only by adding unnecessary words, but by adding words that don’t fit with the normal use of the verb accrue though that is up for debate. See the definitions below. Zittrain needn’t have added “to themselves” as accrue is primarily used a an intransitive verb, that is, it does not require an object. It normally means: to come into existence, accumulate. Zittrain could have said simply: “…something self-correcting without abusing the power that accrues.” However, accrue may be used as a transitive verb, meaning it will have an object, but not usually in the sense professor Zittrain used it. It may mean: to accumulate (as interest rates) or some other thing after a period of time. The power happens as a result of the process, not because someone decides he will have power even if that is the goal. Thus, one does not accrue power to oneself. It either happens or does not happen given the circumstances.In any case, a very insightful interview. Professor Zittrain is quite brilliant and speaks clearly and colorfully on the subject. In one instance he uses a very creative extended metaphor* to describe the “healthiness” sic (see healthfulness) and “safety” of cyberspace. Look for it and enjoy. *Extended metaphor: a metaphor that continues into the sentences that follow, a metaphor developed at great length.

Firemen were seen scurrying in the background. What was the point of the reporter thrusting herself directly into the activity? We seem to have an explanation by her choice of words given the gravity of the situation. Reporter to construction worker: “Did you smell the security thing? She said, looking at the construction worker stopped from his progress, not fully understanding, What thing? What smell? He must have thought.

The reporter seemed to be merely searching for “action images” and found one, a man, presumably engaged in an important action. The reporter stopped the man, pushed the microphone in his unlucky face and used the word “thing” to describe some sort of olfactory security mechanism. We are used to calling the auditory variety fire alarms. How difficult is it to say, “fire alarm,” or “security alarm?” whether it be the smell or sound variety?

“Security thing”? Reporters should be communicating concrete information to the public by both questions and descriptions. “Thing” says very little. Use a noun which squarely names that which is spoken of. Provide a precise mental picture, please! Simply because television mostly concerns visual images, when language is used, we should expect the same clarity a camera may provide.We might say the reporter presented a nuisance to the firefighter, and certainly to her audience.Thing: n. object, fact; idea. (Concise Oxford Dictionary).

A “thing” can name any object, fact, or idea in the abstract. When it counts, use the concrete name.