Comments for Who Are the "Others?" at http://www.cepr.net , comment 1 to 4 out of 4 comments http://www.cepr.net Sat, 25 May 2013 19:27:13 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/who-are-the-qothersq#comment-1878 I think the mysterious "others" would be the editorial board of the WSJ. - DHFabian Tue, 03 Aug 2010 06:17:37 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/who-are-the-qothersq#comment-1829 Elizabeth Warren seen as "too activist" after $16T was lost in wealth and trillions more in lost output and jobs? That's like seeing Ken Salazar of the Interior Department as "too activist" for the job after a hundred oil spill accidents the size of the last one. The "others" worried about "activists" include thousands of lobbyists representing the financial industry who of course, don't qualify as "activists" in any sense of the word. After all, they have license to operate in cloaked secrecy with full access on demand to the pols, dictating the legislation, directing a massive public relations machine and, for example, setting up last minute ambush changes to bills just before passage, the latter based on sheer brute force designed to overcome, outnumber and eliminate exhausted "activist" opponents with 24/7 sniper-like precision. No, these lobbyists aren't "activists". Instead they tow the line to the legal letter to achieve the highest form of democratic participation that can be bought in a closed, privileged market, the only kind of market they understand. "Activist" is a degrading term applied by the ultra rich to those unable to buy their way into the inner circle, doomed to restrict their inquiries and complaints to a public process specifically designed to fail and render them useless beforehand. "Activism" is a thousand blog posts, comments and emails a day, or even Elizabeth Warren speaking out in person somewhere, shed like so much annoying white noise as the doors to the corporate jet close and the real decision making begins there, ends there and stays there. - izzatzo Sat, 31 Jul 2010 09:53:19 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/who-are-the-qothersq#comment-1828 It's funny how often substantive issues are spoken of in terms of what public opinion is willing to accept, in the absence of any information as to what public opinio is willing to accept (or even in the presence of contrary information). Democrats and the media especially do it. Long ago pol sci people split the science of getting elected ("politics of consent") from the science of governing, and now apparently the science of getting elected is thought to have swallowed up government. If you say "The stimulus is too small and won't work and the outcome will be disastrous" whoever you're talking to will just say "In today's political atmosphere that's the best that could be done". It's bad enough that this kind of twisted approach to government is regarded as normal and has become dominant, but on top of that it's not even serious at it's own level. It's just the routine thing people say when pushing their agenda. It doesn't have much of anything to do with "What the people will accept". - John Emerson Sat, 31 Jul 2010 09:22:25 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/who-are-the-qothersq#comment-1827 Perhaps these are the anonymous "others" whose concerns the WSJ is trying to give voice to. - Union Member Sat, 31 Jul 2010 08:58:45 +0100