Comments on: It All Depends on Your Definition of Failure

By: readerOfTeaLeaves

readerOfTeaLeaves — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 04:05:41 +0000

I’m very familiar with the language one might use to discuss these topics among others with similar education in business and finance. Bookstaber writes in a language which is the same as that in business texts, used in board rooms. It’s the language of Shock Doctrinaires. You might think I’m being unkind to him, but frankly, it’s a problem when we continue to talk in euphemisms, like “slipped the surly bonds” instead of “dead.” Until we pointedly begin having regular, systematic conversations as we do business about the ethics involved — whether the choices being made are ethical at all, not merely legal — while using candid and blunt terms, we are going to continue to see a corporate elite abusing citizens, treating them as mere fungibles.

Okay, I follow you now; thanks for the followup.

I heard ‘fungibles’ from a Cmu instructor (probably a guy who never completed his PhD, I suspect) who was a crap instructor and in retrospect I have a hunch he was headed toward some pretty heavy substance abuse problems. He tried to tell us all that we were ‘fungible’, and by then I had already dropped out of several colleges, worked, tried going back to university — and then ran into this pathetic creature. It’s a wonder I ever got a degree at all; these people bore the sh*t out of me. Ye, gads!

I figured that I was less ‘fungible’ than he was because I knew how to suck it up and he’d probably never been in a city where he didn’t understand a word of the local language. ‘fungible’ is a view that I’ve really only ever heard around academics or the most driven, short-sighted biz types.

Clearly, Bookstaber’s been socialized; he’s also quite clearly a fairly abstract thinker.
Anyway, here’s hoping that he can still call bullshit in language that will enlighten.
That would make him ‘unfungible’, which is always a good thing.

The nexis between clear thinking, clear language, and ethics does seem to be a repetitive theme at EW’s ;-))

By: readerOfTeaLeaves

readerOfTeaLeaves — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 03:58:49 +0000

Thanks for the links; Robert Johnson also mentions this tactic in his Real News Network interviews, which knowbuddhau has kindly linked on this thread.

By: eblair

eblair — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 02:13:06 +0000

Seems to be a tension in what you have said. On the one hand, it is OK to disparage Mr. Haskell-an eyewitness-as a “cluck” in the media and public but it is not OK to ask about the video in the media and the public to ensure due process. Care to explain why the one is OK, but the other is not OK?

By: bmaz

bmaz — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 02:04:45 +0000

Yes, it is irrelevant whether I want to see it or not. It only matters that it, or a forensic copy, is in the possession of the investigators and prosecution. Quite frankly, in many regards, it is better if it is not bandied about in the media and public as that maintains a cleaner jury pool, better due process, and ultimately a sounder verdict.

By: eblair

eblair — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 01:52:10 +0000

I’d never heard it before. I got it from an urban dictionary. My bad.

I’m not sure how you can compare someone who is on a flight where a bomb almost went off to someone who sneaks into the White House.

Don’t you find it curious that we haven’t seen the video from Amsterdam? Or is it irrelevant also what you find curious?

By: bmaz

bmaz — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 01:42:11 +0000

I’m not sure what you mean by “the rest”.

Anything extraneous to what I specifically described.

Also, why do you call Mr. Haskell a “cluck”

He comes off as goofy and opportunistic in an interloper Salahi kind of way.

which I take it means crack addict?

Where in the world do you get that? I said nothing of the kind.

By: eblair

eblair — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 01:07:47 +0000

I’m not sure what you mean by “the rest”. Also, why do you call Mr. Haskell a “cluck” which I take it means crack addict?

By: bmaz

bmaz — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 00:48:23 +0000

It is irrelevant whether I see it or not. It should be forensically copied from the original, certified as so by an appropriate custodian of records and securely preserved as evidence to be considered by investigators and then prosecutors and, if there is an indictment, proffered and admitted, if a proper foundation is laid, into evidence on the record in the resultant cases. The rest is prurient bullshit.

By: ginwales

ginwales — Sun, 03 Jan 2010 23:37:34 +0000

Beware of ‘failure’
Look at Labour’s dismal reputation in the British media. Obama and the Dems, you have to challenge this stuff head on or they will crucify you. And, as important, you have to be resolute in pursuit of the social agenda – in your case Health and Housing.
To be frank, Labour has been weak in power; Blair’s project was never to challenge the fundamentals. In fact he followed an essentially Thatcherite agenda and all the evidence is that his legacy, orchestrated by the media, will lead the electorate to a Tory victory in the spring election. Obama’s platform is much stronger. But the early signs are that his administration sees ‘compromise before the event’ as the strategy. Blair’s strategy was to deceive us (inluding into war).
Stand up and be strong you Americans. Obama’s popular organising committees at grass routes are a strong base to work from. Go for self- organisation and unity. We need you to be strong. There is too much bad stuff around, what with wars and banks and climate. We didn’t cause any of this so the fights over Health and Housing and Jobs are where the fightback should start. And that is also where we look to the Obama Project to show resolve. Or, like our rather gutless Labour, you will contribute to more years of the sort of slash and burn social policies that the Conservatives are already promising – even before the election.

By: eblair

eblair — Sun, 03 Jan 2010 22:44:19 +0000

I asked a simple question to both bmaz and PJEvans: don’t you want to see the video from Amsterdam? Yes or No?