Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Seriously, the answer to this question is pretty simple, dollar signs! the most powerful families are the families with the most money. And this is a self perpetuating cycle. We saw what money did for Obama and his liberal illuminati friends... it got him the presidency. powerful families end up buying their way into politics and the circle continues.
was favorably discussed on right wing radio shows today.
You know how it goes.
"Even the liberal New York Times is showing us how Obama is stupidly antagonizing Jack Bauer, and when Jack Bauer goes away, into his tent, and sulks, like Achilles, it'll all be Obama's fault. And then the Trojans will kill us in our beds."
Okay they didn't really mention Achilles - - that'd be all Greek to the wingnuts.
Mazzetti is a CIA tool but at least this time he's more or less open about that.
Meanwhile, in the same edition of the NYTimes, on top of the editorial page, there's an editorial (unsigned, but probably by editorial board member Dorothy Samuels), that could've been written by Glenn Greenwald. The editorial discusses the wreck which used to be the USDOJ and then lays out the major issues on which Eric Holder should be questioned.
Quite a contrast, people like Dorothy Samuels at the NYTimes versus people like Benjamin Wittes at the WaPo.
The WaPo editorials often make one wonder why the editorial writers seem to ignore significant facts reported by the WaPo news writers, while the NYTimes editorials often make one glad that the editorial writers aren't getting spun by the NYTimes news writers.
But the WaPo has "new" management, so maybe it'll change.
http://www.washingtonian.com/blogarticles/people/capitalcomment/6739.html
Family Dynasty Continues with Katharine II
The rise of Katharine Weymouth to publisher of the Washington Post.
[...]
She’s the only Graham of the third [sic] generation to show interest in joining the family empire, founded when great-grandfather Eugene Meyer bought the Post out of bankruptcy in 1933. In the family line of publishers, she follows grandfather Phil Graham, grandmother Katharine “Kay” Graham, and her uncle Don as publisher. [...]
The "Washingtonian" can't count too good.
Starting with her great-grandfather Eugene, Katherine II is of the FOURTH generation, not the third generation.
Fred Hiatt, the editorial page editor at the WaPo, still reports directly to Katherine II's "Uncle Don" . . . for now. (It's an extremely unusual org chart. At most newspapers, the editorial page editor reports to the publisher, but at the WaPo, the editorial page editor goes around the publisher, and reports directly to the publisher's boss.)
http://washpost.com/news_ed/editorial/index.shtml
"Fred Hiatt, reports directly to The Post's chairman, Donald Graham."
I agreed with most of what you said, but do want to comment on the idea of a union being inherently democratic. I can't speak to your experience in your union, in whatever industry it may have been. However, I worked for a union and have to say it was the least democratic institution I ever worked for. The union itself was run by an elite tier of ivy league graduates who had probably never worked a day in their life in the industry. Below them, a group of wonky types from the same universities. And below them, the organizers--recruits from the industry floors who were inculcated in the practices of recruiting and expanding the union. They were to be the messengers and foot soldiers for the upper tiers.
The message that was most clear to me by the end of my time there was that the organizers were to be manipulated as much as possible, because they could never understand the long term goals of the organization or how they would most often conflict with the goals of the workers themselves--not only in their own shops, but even in whole cities, whole states. The most important thing was for the organizers to never think for themselves.
Entire meetings were had in which the members of the shop councils--the democratically elected representatives of the union members-- were treated like chess pieces, their individual temperments and strengths used to foil a group here, to accentuate another there. Really, the talk of manipulating them to do things that were not necessarily beneficial to themselves or their co-workers was above board and out in the open, but, of course, never discussed out of the confines of the upper tier meeting rooms.
I won't mention the name of the union, suffice to say that it is one of the fastest growing, in the lowest paid service occupations. If you want democracy, you certainly shouldn't be looking toward them as an example. They are much more like the Democratic party than you could ever imagine.
Nepotism hinges on an impropriety, rather than just someone who is qualified but also related getting a position. -- steve04
This may be the regulatory or legal definition of the term, but that isn't what we are referring to in the context of elected office. We are talking about misuse of family names as though they were "brand" labels. Because of nepotism, the "well-labeled" individual ends up displacing a better quality, but less well known item on the Congressional (or gubernatorial) shelf. This is not in the best interest of the electorate.
Lastly, to imply that connections are somehow inherently bad strikes me as an awfully lonely position to take. Humans have, over history, gathered as tribes, villages, families, cities, and nations because they found themselves stronger together than apart. It's rather antisocial to claim to neither want nor have any connections what so ever. -- steve04
Disingenuous drivel. A correct, but "lonely" position on an issue like this one is in no way equivalent to "anti-social".
It is nothing short of amazing to me that anyone would come out in public in favor of favoritism. There is no logically sound argument for family-based inheritance of power. None. Whatsoever.
Our elected officials are becoming an aristocracy for our country. Until we reform our electoral process to prevent this type of governmental manipulation, the American voter will receive fewer and fewer choices with less and less getting done in Washington.
One of the two houses of Congress should have its members selected by jury style process on a volunteer basis with education requirements (BA/BS/MA/PHD)or some other manner that allows for no campaigns or money lobbyists to influence them.
How we choose our politicians is the root problem. The appointment process should be eliminated.
Demand Constitutional reform by convention or amendment.
http://voxvocisrespublica.blogspot.com/ or link @ sig
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
