3 ms·

I suppose because these arguments always assume the premise - that money everywhere and always corrupts politics - that they then conclude. Chomsky's old enough

I suppose because these arguments always assume the premise - that money everywhere and always corrupts politics - that they then conclude. Chomsky's old enough to know better, too. All this being said, short of that, Chomsky's scholarship is otherwise impeccable and a great place to get a larger view of the vents of history. But even going back to Vietnam, accusing the US of imperialism just because of the French doesn't hold up very well. In the case of the Dulles Brothers' coups in South and Central America in the 1950s, the documentation that this was the case is intact; in Vietnam it simply isn't. If it were well known that money always corrupts, then regulatory legislation would involve a debate on those costs rather than just going ahead with it. And what you'll find is that it nearly never does. Chomsky and Howard Zinn are important to read, but please understand that nobody's able to empirically line up all the "facts" There's very thin slice of speculative fiction at the end of the derivation of those arguments.

bpchaps 11y ago
Hah! Yeah, right. Money corrupts more than you think. Just look at Ricky Hendon, for example. He contracts his "services" to mayoral candidates and charges a heavy, heavy penny. Hell, there's a conversation on facebook where he talks to Dock Walls and Willy Wilson in the same post about how he worked at getting Amara Enyia kicked out of the election. He did this after Enyia's team kicked him out of their offices because of his incredibly shady practices and stopped paying him. The inside folk I talked to at the time all agreed - he's a scumbag, ex Senator who should've been sent to jail for corruption charges. So, because of his selfish, monetary reasons, Chicago's candidate pool completely thinned. You can make the argument, "Yeah, that's just one person.", sure. But that one person fucked Chicago's election. Later on in that election, Bob Fioretti, who used Amara's campaign manager, dropped out of the race and gave his public support to Rahm - Because he received 50k to do so. Even though throughout that entire election, he was a hugely public critic of Rahm. If anyone thinks that money doesn't corrupt, or that it doesn't have strong negative influence, they're a god damn naive fool. "It never does", my ass.
- ArkyBeagle 11y ago
  I'm taking the skeptical line. There's an old saw - "the plural of anecdote is not data." Those are extremely good examples but in the larger picture, the effects aren't nearly measurable. This could be nothing more than a lack of reporting. But social scientists have never been able to thoroughly prove that money matters in significant ways. And I never said "it never does." That'd be foolish. My point is more subtle - we don't much know. Actual stories of corruption are rare enough to be noteworthy.
  - bpchaps 11y ago
    I'm not sure why you wouldn't consider this noteworthy. No, the effects aren't directly measurable. But why does this necessarily need to be an academic persuit? Trust me, I completely understand why purity of information/data/research is needed, but there's a certain point where "Yep, this signed document shows they're gaming the system for money" is all that should be enough. My "anecdata" is a clear example where money and collusion directly affects the lives of 2.6 million people. When four out of five candidates are swayed by money - directly or indirectly - in a way that effects that many people, it's significant!! Yes, thinning the candidate pool is god damn significant. Mind you, this isn't something that I saw or heard in the news. This was told to me out of the horse's mouth while sitting in Fioretti's office with his campaign manager and Amara's old campaign manager. This meeting was done about a week after two of my FOIA requests proved exactly what Hendon said over Facebook. Want to know why you don't see anything about this in the media? They never report it since they're dumbfoundedly not interested in any of it. Chicago's newspapers are the most disinterest group of asshats I've ever had the pleasure of talking to. Of course you're not going to hear anything from them. I know you love anecdata, but I'm going to give you an example of more, anyway. After the Chicago Tribune published an article that made national news on how they were simply suing the mayor for his mail/texting records, I called them and said I was suing for mayor's phone records. The journalist who wrote the article had zero care for his own article and basically said, "I'm just doing my job" and sent me to the person who did the research. I never heard a single thing from him. If these guys are supposed to be renowned journalists and this is the shit we get, of course you're not going to get anything that's researchable. Use your bayesian reasoning skills instead of naively throwing away "anecdata". Christ.

bpchaps 11y ago

Hah! Yeah, right. Money corrupts more than you think. Just look at Ricky Hendon, for example. He contracts his "services" to mayoral candidates and charges a heavy, heavy penny. Hell, there's a conversation on facebook where he talks to Dock Walls and Willy Wilson in the same post about how he worked at getting Amara Enyia kicked out of the election. He did this after Enyia's team kicked him out of their offices because of his incredibly shady practices and stopped paying him. The inside folk I talked to at the time all agreed - he's a scumbag, ex Senator who should've been sent to jail for corruption charges. So, because of his selfish, monetary reasons, Chicago's candidate pool completely thinned. You can make the argument, "Yeah, that's just one person.", sure. But that one person fucked Chicago's election. Later on in that election, Bob Fioretti, who used Amara's campaign manager, dropped out of the race and gave his public support to Rahm - Because he received 50k to do so. Even though throughout that entire election, he was a hugely public critic of Rahm. If anyone thinks that money doesn't corrupt, or that it doesn't have strong negative influence, they're a god damn naive fool. "It never does", my ass.

ArkyBeagle 11y ago
I'm taking the skeptical line. There's an old saw - "the plural of anecdote is not data." Those are extremely good examples but in the larger picture, the effects aren't nearly measurable. This could be nothing more than a lack of reporting. But social scientists have never been able to thoroughly prove that money matters in significant ways. And I never said "it never does." That'd be foolish. My point is more subtle - we don't much know. Actual stories of corruption are rare enough to be noteworthy.
- bpchaps 11y ago
  I'm not sure why you wouldn't consider this noteworthy. No, the effects aren't directly measurable. But why does this necessarily need to be an academic persuit? Trust me, I completely understand why purity of information/data/research is needed, but there's a certain point where "Yep, this signed document shows they're gaming the system for money" is all that should be enough. My "anecdata" is a clear example where money and collusion directly affects the lives of 2.6 million people. When four out of five candidates are swayed by money - directly or indirectly - in a way that effects that many people, it's significant!! Yes, thinning the candidate pool is god damn significant. Mind you, this isn't something that I saw or heard in the news. This was told to me out of the horse's mouth while sitting in Fioretti's office with his campaign manager and Amara's old campaign manager. This meeting was done about a week after two of my FOIA requests proved exactly what Hendon said over Facebook. Want to know why you don't see anything about this in the media? They never report it since they're dumbfoundedly not interested in any of it. Chicago's newspapers are the most disinterest group of asshats I've ever had the pleasure of talking to. Of course you're not going to hear anything from them. I know you love anecdata, but I'm going to give you an example of more, anyway. After the Chicago Tribune published an article that made national news on how they were simply suing the mayor for his mail/texting records, I called them and said I was suing for mayor's phone records. The journalist who wrote the article had zero care for his own article and basically said, "I'm just doing my job" and sent me to the person who did the research. I never heard a single thing from him. If these guys are supposed to be renowned journalists and this is the shit we get, of course you're not going to get anything that's researchable. Use your bayesian reasoning skills instead of naively throwing away "anecdata". Christ.