Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
When I was young I would religiously watch the Sunday morning news shows, especially NB
C’s Meet the Press. Beginning in 1947, MTP is the longest running show in television history. While the other networks had comparable shows, clearly MTP with its longevity was seen as the show of record.
“The show’s format consists of an extended one-on-one interview with the host and is sometimes followed by a roundtable discussion or one-on-two interview with figures in adversarial positions, either Congress members from opposite sides of the aisle or political commentators. The show expanded to 60 minutes starting with the September 20, 1992 broadcast” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meet_the_Press#Moderators
Face the Nation, premiering in 1954 is considered to be the other Sunday morning News show of record. FTN’s format is:
“The moderator interviews newsmakers on the latest issues and delivers a short topical commentary at the end of the broadcast. The program broadcasts from Washington, D.C. Guests include government leaders, politicians, and international figures in the news. CBS News correspondents and other contributors engage the guests in a roundtable discussion focusing on current topics.”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face_the_Nation
What all of these shows have in common is that they are repeatedly populated by the same people, whether politicians, journalists, economists or political operators. This link gives the background of the truth of Sunday morning “journalism”. http://mediamatters.org/search/index?qstring=Sunday+Morning+Talk+Shows&x=9&y=6 The casts rarely change and in all but the rarest of cases these guests make up what could be called our nation’s “Pundit Class”. They are seen as the “Serious People”, who lead America’s national debate on vital issues. I’ve been a “political junkie” since the age of ten. For many years I was misled into believing that these “Serious People” were really my intellectual betters when it came to public affairs and that political discussion must only exist within the ground rules of debate established by our “Pundit Class”. Beginning with the murder of JFK and in the ensuing disillusionment of the Sixties I’ve come to see that not only is this “Pundit Class” inherently corrupt, but only a rare few can barely be called intellectually informative. This group is in reality the paid propagandists of the elite 1% that rule this country and their main task is to limit the scope of our national debate.
In the last two weeks one of the most heard and most esteemed members of the Pundit Class, Fareed Zakaria, has been suspended from Time Magazine and CNN due to the discovery of plagiarism in one of his columns. Zacharia is also a Yale University Trustee and there is talk that his removal from that august position is under consideration. I’ve never particularly cared for Mr. Zakaria, but I was surprised by his plagiarism, more so by the fact he admitted it so readily and so abjectly. An article in the Huffington Post provided an explanation of Mr. Zakaria’s actions with a surprising explanation that I hadn’t expected and yet one that in retrospect makes perfect sense.
On 8/12/12 Eric Zeusse, an investigative historian, posted an article titled: “Fareed Zakaria Is Bitten by His Own Tale: How He Helped Create the System That Bit Him Back”. He began the article in this manner and in doing so exposed me to an idea that frankly hadn’t occurred to me.
“When Fareed Zakaria was suspended on Friday from Time and CNN, for plagiarism, this wasn’t merely justice, it was poetic justice: it rhymed. What it rhymed with was his own lifelong devotion to the global economic star system that he, as a born aristocrat in India, who has always been loyal to the aristocracy, inherited and has always helped to advance, at the expense of the public in every nation. He was suspended because, as a born aristocrat, who is a long-time member of the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg Group, and many other of the global aristocracy’s primary organizations, he is so well-connected that his writing-commissions are more than any one person can possibly handle, and he consequently cannot possibly actually write all that is attributed to him. He certainly cannot research it all.”
In my naivete it I never thought of the possibility that someone like Mr. Zacharia might not write all, or even most of his material. I wasn’t aware of his aristocratic background, nor of his close connection to some of the secretive groups that shape global policy. I always just saw him as a “middle-of-the-road” pundit, with whom I disagreed on many things. As Mr. Zeusse goes on to explain:
“Like many “writing” stars, he has a staff perform much of the research and maybe even actual writing for him, and many in his situation are actually more editors than they are writers; but, regardless, he cannot let the public know that this is the way things are, because this is simply the way that the star system works in the “writing” fields, and because the public is supposed to think that these stars in the writing fields are writers, more than editors.
And, it’s a very profitable system for such stars. As Paul Starobin said, headlining “Money Talks,” in the March 2012 Columbia Journalism Review, Zakaria’s speaking fee is $75,000, and “he has been retained for speeches by numerous financial firms, including Baker Capital, Catterton Partners, Dreihaus Capital Management, ING, Merrill Lynch, Oak Investment Partners, Charles Schwab, and T. Rowe Price.”
So, he’s clearly a very busy man, with a considerable staff; he can’t possibly do everything himself.
But he needs to appear as if he does. He needs to present everything “he” does, as “his.”
The last two sentences above ring true and explain why Zakaria is so willing to perform mea culpa, take his suspensions and hope that this will blow over quickly. To admit the possible truth that someone writing for him had actually plagiarized would expose the fact that this “World Class Pundit and Author”, was merely a “front man” representing his privileged class. If this is true of Zakaria, who else of these “serious journalistic stars” is also doing the same thing and more importantly how are they shaping the political debate?
“Fareed Zakaria knows the way it works. So, he cannot afford to admit when he is being credited with the work of his employees. Far less damaging to him is to admit that he has done plagiarism himself, as he has admitted in this particular case — regardless whether it’s true.
If Zakaria didn’t actually do this plagiarism, could he very well announce to the world “I didn’t do it; I didn’t even research or write the article”? No. Romney and the Republicans say that the “job creators” at the top are the engine of the economy, and the aristocracy need to maintain this myth. It’s very important to them — that they are the stars, and that the people who might be the actual creators who work for them are not.
Zakaria wouldn’t want to burst the bubble atop which he is floating. To people in his situation, it’s a bubble of money, and it’s theirs. They don’t want to share it any more than they absolutely have to. (They despise labor unions for that very reason.) And their employees are very dependent upon them, so no one will talk about it — not the stars, not their workers.”
To make Eric Zeusse’s premise even more interesting we have this report on 8/16/12, “Fareed Zakaria Cleared By Time, CNN In Plagiarism Investigation”. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/16/fareed-zakaria-time-columns-review_n_1792081.html .
“We have completed a thorough review of each of Fareed Zakaria’s columns for TIME, and we are entirely satisfied that the language in question in his recent column was an unintentional error and an isolated incident for which he has apologized. We look forward to having Fareed’s thoughtful and important voice back in the magazine with his next column in the issue that comes out on September 7.”
Since Zakaria originally admitted he had made “A terrible mistake” it is heartening to see that his “mistake” was only an isolated incident. I think back to graduate schools papers I’ve written and wonder how I would have fared if I had “made a terrible mistake” in them through plagiarism. Would an investigation of my “isolated incident” and remorse have allowed me to continue in school? However, protecting Mr. Zakaria, one of the chosen, is not only important for his sake, but for the sake of these “News Entities” that rely so heavily on the “connected” pundit class to provide their“cogent” analysis of major issues.
How many other “Pundits” acting as the “serious” people are setting the parameters of the national debate through their appearances on Sunday Morning talk shows, News Channels, the PBS News Hour and it appears as paid guest speakers at supposedly meaningful conferences and conventions? The person who first came to mind as I read this article on Zakaria was Thomas Friedman. Friedman is a son of privilege who married into a billionaire family. He has been a champion of “Globalization”, which to me has always meant unbridled support for the multinational Corporatocracy. He also seems to me to be a very childish writer in that his use of analogies to draw global conclusions is inept to the point of comedy. During my illness my daughter bought me a copy of “Friedman’s “The World is Flat” and in reading it I was blown away by how flimsy a narrative it was for someone so respected as a pundit, who gets so much air time and respect as a serious commentator on global issues. As it was put in his Wikipedia Article:
“A number of critics have taken issue with Friedman’s views, as well as aspects of his writing style. Critics deride his penchant for excessive optimism, a consistently flawed analytical approach, and a habit of trotting out unexamined truisms to support his opinions.”
“Some critics have derided Friedman’s idiosyncratic prose style, with its tendency to use mixed metaphors and analogies”.
“Similarly, journalist Matt Taibbi has said of Friedman’s writing that, “Friedman came up with lines so hilarious you couldn’t make them up even if you were trying – and when you tried to actually picture the ‘illustrative’ figures of speech he offered to explain himself, what you often ended up with was pure physical comedy of the Buster Keaton/Three Stooges school, with whole nations and peoples slipping and falling on the misplaced banana peels of his literary endeavors.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Friedman
While I have no proof of it, I would speculate that Friedman too has people writing much of his stuff and that his journalism is more of the editorial kind. However, what is obvious and known about Friedman is that he is a pundit star, ranking with, or possibly above Zakaria in the firmament of “Serious People” who frame our national debate and dominate our national media. This is really nothing new in our country. In the past the “serious people” were the likes of Walter Lippman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Lippmann Scotty Reston, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Reston . These past pundits and “cold warriors”, share a commonality with Zakaria and Friedman, in that they all serve(d) the interests of the Corporate and Monied Elite that run this country from behind the scenes. Indeed, I’m sure that you the reader could expand this very small list of those who are deemed acceptable to lead the “serious” discussion of our national/international issues.
I assert that the entire Liberal versus Conservative debate in this country is but a smokescreen that distracts us from the one most vital issue. Our nation and indeed the world is and has been controlled by an Elite representing those with most money and power. Their first allegiance is to themselves, their class and to the belief that they alone are fit to rule us all. Call it what you will, but to me it is the continuation of feudalism in modern guise. Just as in feudalism there were “Courtiers” who gladly did the bidding of their “Royal Masters”, in order to enrich their own lives. Most of the “Courtiers” were either born to, or became part of the elite, while maintaining the pretense of speaking for the benefit of all humanity.
If we the people are ever to cast off the control of those who would leash us for their benefit, we must learn to think for ourselves and critically examine the opinions of those who are represented to us as “serious people”. Unfortunately, this remains a highly individual task because we are surrounded by experts, who in reality are propagandists purveying non-existent mythology to keep us in the thrall of the Elite. Disdain the pundits for their message is false. Become your own pundit and most especially view the world through an iconoclastic perspective. Despite their degrees, their travels, experiences and accolades, few are really that perceptive since they have been co-opted and anointed as members of a Priesthood of Power, blinding them to what real life for most of us is about.
Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
Bron, I notice your rebuttal to Glass Steagall is written in 1999, before the real crisis, so it has no merit.
Here is a great discussion of Austrian economics and why fake Libertarianism is connected to von Mises failure to account for external costs. Confusing the object with the ends it must satisfy. The Ayn Rand School & Paul Ryan are fake Libertarians. Max Keiser talks to Sandeep Jaitly of feketeresearch.com about the real Austrian economics of Carl Menger versus the fake Austrian economics of Ludwig von Mises. The interview starts around 12 minutes in:
A great example of organization and industry was Benjamin Franklin, according to himself.
He is said to be our first franchiser. Training and financing newspaper publishers.
Most of us are simply lazy and have never experienced a fully engaged life. Me too.
Someday, you might rise up and discover the joys of doing…..just anything will do. What a nice feeling it will be.
Say a blank-faced lie five times and some will believe it. Say it one time to a religious person and it will be believed.
And God created all those anthro fossils too. And we fought with dinosaurs. And now we are using nukes to combat evil. We could use them against the gays, they say, but they have inseminated….sorry, infiltrated us. Uhhh.
Do we really have so many idiots in America? 58% of the Republicans.
Incredible.
@Darren Smith: It is this skill [accomplishing many things in parallel] that to me seems to be the difference between success and self actualization.
I do not know why you think such people are “self-actualized.” I am in the group you describe, I usually have three or four things going on at the same time. I would call such people “organized.”
No offense, but I have always thought that term, “self-actualization,” was drivel. As far as I can tell it means “reaching one’s potential,” but nobody ever reaches their potential, not even Darwin, Newton or Einstein. It is a ridiculous target and a formula for failure.
If what you seek is accomplishment, let me suggest the pithy advice of two masters: Stephen King, the author, and Steve Martin, the entertainer. Steve Martin says he is often asked by audiences in Q&A how to become famous like him. His advice is, “You have to become so good at something that you cannot be ignored.” In entertainment there are plenty of places to perform for free, local places, open mikes, karaoke bars, street corners, whatever. He says it isn’t about you finding an agent, it is about making an agent want to find you.
Stephen King, in Q&A, is often asked how to become a writer. He says, “By writing. What is stopping you? When you get good enough, try to sell it, but keep writing, every day, without exception.”
He says he started out, while working full time, writing six hours every day, meaning 365 days a year, without fail. He wrote several novels worth of material before he ever sold anything.
We follow Stephen Martin’s advice to become “so good that people cannot ignore you” by putting in the hours of practice and dedication to our craft. We do that by following Stephen King’s advice of self-discipline and schedule.
I think the reason most people do not accomplish much is simply because they want to live their day by day life by the seat of their pants and their gut instinct. They are impulsive, and they want to stay that way, a schedule seems like a burden to them, organization of their time feels like work.
For me the trick was overcoming that prejudice and seeing organization as the tool that let me manage my limited time to accomplish something. I truly feel like my schedule frees me, because it is through organization and scheduling that I know everything else is taken care of, I have no other responsibilities, the session I have allotted is my time to do that work and nothing is going to fall apart or collapse while I do it. It helps me focus, it eliminates worry and distractions so I can work.
Once again illustrating that sources matter in evaluating information.
From ALEC Exposed/Sourcewatch:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Mercatus_Center
The Mercatus Center, part of George Mason University, is one of the best-funded think tanks in the United States at the moment. It is listed as “sister organization” to the Institute of Humane Studies. “Mercatus generates knowledge and understanding of how institutions affect the freedom to prosper and holds organizations accountable for their impact on that freedom,” it states on its website. [2]
The Mercatus Center was founded and is funded by the Koch Family Foundations. According to financial records, the Koch family has contributed more than thirty million dollars to George Mason, much of which has gone to the Mercatus Center, a nonprofit organization. Democratic strategist Rob Stein described the Mercatus Center as “ground zero for deregulation policy in Washington.”
The Mercatus Center has engaged in campaigns involving deregulation, especially environmental deregulation. It now fills the role once played by the economics department at Chicago University as the originator of extreme neoliberal ideas. Fourteen of the 23 regulations that George W Bush put on his hitlist were, according to the Wall Street Journal, first suggested by academics working at the Mercatus Centre.[1]
History
The Mercatus Center was founded as the Center for Market Processes by former economist Rich Fink, executive vice president of Koch Industries and former president of the Koch Foundations, who went on to found Citizens for a Sound Economy. Fink heads Koch Industries’ lobbying operation in Washington…
Bron,
You claim the information I provided about the Glass-Steagall Act was leftist history. You dismiss information that doesn’t fit into your ideology. Are you afraid of the truth?
*****
FYI:
In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins
Highly religious Americans most likely to believe in creationism
by Frank Newport
http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/hold-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx
Excerpts:
PRINCETON, NJ — Forty-six percent of Americans believe in the creationist view that God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. The prevalence of this creationist view of the origin of humans is essentially unchanged from 30 years ago, when Gallup first asked the question. About a third of Americans believe that humans evolved, but with God’s guidance; 15% say humans evolved, but that God had no part in the process.
*
Majority of Republicans Are Creationists
Highly religious Americans are more likely to be Republican than those who are less religious, which helps explain the relationship between partisanship and beliefs about human origins. The major distinction is between Republicans and everyone else. While 58% of Republicans believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years, 39% of independents and 41% of Democrats agree.
Appeal to authority much, Bron?
The fact that they are published through von Mises (one of them even directly thanks that clown Rothbard) shows they are Austrian “friendlies”.
The problem just isn’t the von Mises Institute being disreputable, Bron. The problem is that whole “school” (as loathe as I am to use that term in conjunction with a bunch of non-scientific poseurs hiding politics behind the guise of economics) is disreputable. That’s what happens when you don’t base your theories on facts but rather the pronouncements of fools appealing to their own authority like von Mises. I don’t give a good goddamn if they also publish through Harlequin Romance. They are espousing the same kind of mystical “economics” and revisionist history that the Austrian School (and von Mises) is famous for. The “unpopular” ideas you like to put forth aren’t just unpopular because they inherently suck (and they do). They are unpopular because any critical thinker sees through their shoddy work and sloppy thought quite easily.
Pulled out of your ass? That’s exactly what happens when you quote anything or anyone associated with von Mises and Austrian School. The only people who respect them? Are themselves. Which is simply ironic given they are simple minded apologists for corporatist greed.
Bron,
“This is by Alexander Tabarrok who holds the Bartley J. Madden Chair in Economics at George Mason University.”
From Tabarrok’s website:
“I hold the Bartley J. Madden Chair in Economics at the Mercatus Center and am an associate professor of economics at George Mason University.”
http://mason.gmu.edu/~atabarro/
*****
I did a lot of research on the Mercatus Center and wrote a post about it for the Turley blog:
The Mercatus Center: A Tentacle of the Deregulation-Loving Kochtopus Helping in the Effort to Deny Climate Change and Eviscerate the EPA
http://jonathanturley.org/2011/10/10/the-mercatus-center-a-tentacle-of-the-deregulation-loving-kochtopus-helping-in-the-effort-to-deny-climate-change-and-eviscerate-the-epa/
Elaine:
“The “left’s” history of Earth is that our planet is much more than several thousand years old…and that dinosaurs and humans didn’t co-exist…and that humans evolved from earlier lifeforms.
Maybe “truth” has a liberal bias–as they say.”
Well considering I and most of the conservatives I know think the same way, I am not really sure why you would bring that up. Truth is truth, it has no bias.
I have offered an alternative to the left’s “history”/rationalization for the Glass-Steagall Act. You might do well to read these books and articles instead of dismissing them out of hand. I am not afraid of truth, why are you?
The guy is a professor at George Mason University. The other sources are books or articles from the Journal of Economic History found on JSTOR which I dont think has anything to do with the Mises Institute.
That you fail to realize there are works on the subject other than socialist apologists for the great depression is your failing.
Raghuram Rajan is the Eric J. Gleacher Distinguished Service Professor of Finance at the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business.
Prior to resuming teaching in 2007, Dr. Rajan was the Economic Counselor and Director of Research (in plain English, the Chief Economist) at the International Monetary Fund (from 2003). Since then, he has chaired the Indian government’s Committee on Financial Sector Reforms, which submitted its report in September 2008.
Carlos D. Ramirez is currently Associate Professor of Economics at George Mason University He has been at the Economics Department since 1993. He currently teaches graduate courses in International Monetary Economics and Macroeconomics, and has taught undergraduate courses in Money and Banking and International Finance. He serves as Program Director for the Masters Program in economics, is a member or advisor of several dissertation committees, member or chair of several qualifying exam committees. In addition, since 2005 he has been a Resident Fellow at the Center for Financial Research at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. His current research interests include banking, financial markets, public choice, international economics, wine economics, as well as China’s economic development and growth. For more, including a list of research activity, please see his Curriculum Vitae.
George J. Benston is professor of finance, accounting, and economics in the Goizueta Business School and professor of economics in the college of arts and sciences at Emory University. He is a founder and current member of the Shadow Financial Regulatory Committee and a member of the Financial Economists’ Roundtable. Benston has taught at the University of Rochester, University of Chicago, University of California at Berkeley, and other schools. He has a Ph.D. in finance and economics from the University of Chicago, an MBA from New York University in accounting, and a BA from Queens College. He has published extensively and has consulted for and worked with the principal U.S. banking regulatory agencies and testified before several committees of the U.S. Congress and regulatory bodies.
I see a good deal of economic expertise in those 3 but not much about the Mises Institute.
I am sure that Alexander Tabbarrok has written for more than just the Mises Institute seeing as how he has an endowed chair in economics at George Mason University.
Do you just pull those comments out of your a$$? I am beginning to think so.
Gene,
don’t you know that Greed is good. As long as you are the one getting the good end of the greed.
Gene,
The “left’s” history of Earth is that our planet is much more than several thousand years old…and that dinosaurs and humans didn’t co-exist…and that humans evolved from earlier lifeforms.
Maybe “truth” has a liberal bias–as they say.
Here’s my friend’s comment to this article:
This editorial, merely-front-man role ascribed to Zakaria
partakes, methinks, of the pervasive top-down, nondemocratic structure of our society, about which, if memory serves, I had complained before.
The senator does not merely don a suit and brandish an attache case in his mission to Washington, D.C., but has in addition huge staffs both there and in his home state; POTUS himself sits astride a speechwriter pool [no secret there]; the professor surrounds himself with indentured graduate students; heck, even during the Italian renaissance, every painter of note drew upon the labor of anonymous apprentices. And don’t even get me started about our CEO’s, our so ever “talented” CEO’s!!
TonyC,
If I broke some rule or your feeling of integrity by posting your comment to MikeS on the one party system and the alpha factor on another site, then I apologize.
I did it without your signature, to “protect the innocent” as I added.
It was in the way of stuffing it into the mouth of a Ryan enthusiast. Not that he would understand, but maybe others there would.
What is the rule or custom on that? Is prior permission needed?
“yes, that is the
left’shistory of the banking act.here are some other revisionist apologist fantasy resources:”
You should really just say you’re making shit up as you go along rather than quote any von Mises organelle, Bron. Post hoc rationalization for the Austrian School’s Political Polemic for Greed Posing as Economics is their specialty, but actual science, economics or history? Not so much.
“Whosoever tells a thing in the name of him that said it, brings redemption to the world” — Why is this so?
’cause such a person is an ass, and we all know that Messiah will appear riding a donkey…
Elaine:
yes, that is the left’s history of the banking act.
here are some other resources:
http://mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae1_1_1.pdf
This is by Alexander Tabarrok who holds the Bartley J. Madden Chair in Economics at George Mason University.
Or “Is the Glass-Steagall Act Justified? A Study of the U.S. Experience with Universal Banking Before 1933
Randal S. Kroszner and Raghuram G. Rajan
“The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 removed commercial banks from securities underwriting business. We evaluate the argument for the separation of commercial and investment banking, that conflicts of interest induce commercial banks to fool the public into investing in securities which turn out to be of low quality. A comparison of the performance of securities underwritten by commercial and investment banks prior to the Act shows no evidence of this. Instead, the public appears to have rationally accounted for the possibility of conflicts of interest and this appears to have constrained the banks to underwrite high-quality securities.”
George Benston went through the entire Pecora hearings and found them to be a complete sham.”
His book on the subject is:
“The Separation of Commercial and Investment Banking: The Glass-Steagall Act Revisited and Reconsidered”
“Carlos Ramirez later showed that the separation of commercial and investment banking increased the cost of external finance.”
Did Glass-Steagall Increase the Cost of External Finance for Corporate Investment?: Evidence from Bank and Insurance Company Affiliations
Carlos D. Ramírez
The Journal of Economic History
Vol. 59, No. 2 (Jun., 1999), pp. 372-396
Lottakatz, I have thought (and said) for a long time that we have no more philosophers in our culture and that we are entirely dependent upon the comedians for this crucial service now. Therefore I really appreciate your comments about Jon Stewart.
Tony C, Idealist: HAMDU might or might not be the factor Tony C is referring to. If I understand it correctly, what you’re calling “HAMDU” is a stand-up comic’s construct that is vaguely pronounced “HUMDOO” and it derives from the acronym “Heterosexual Male Dominance Units.”
According to the routine, HMDU is “the currency of our culture.”
Indeed, you do not need to be heterosexual to have lots of HMDU; you do not need to be male; Janet Reno had ENORMOUS HMDU in her day. (Remember Waco, Texas?)
If, however, one is born heterosexual and male in America, one has a certain “bank” of HMDU to start with.
One reason suggested for why straight men fear gay men is that they realize that gay men (except those in the closet, obviously) have voluntarily given up some HMDU, and the act of voluntarily giving up any amount of HMDU is scary to HMDU-deficient people and to HMDU addicts as well.
It’s a fairly complex system with lots of ins and outs. Tony C, does this look like the same phenomenon you were describing?