« Remedy du Jour -- April 6, 2013 | Main | Don't Mess With Dr. Zhang! »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Each theory you posit has probably been true at some point in the organization's lifecycle. A situation emerges; someone arrives to "fix" it and then another different situation emerges from the changes.

It's not all that different from the American governance experiment which was novel only in its selection of "rule of law" as a replacement for the King's X. And who determined which law would rule? At the time, it was land owners (the same families of people who ran England at that time too).

Land owner funded pamphleteers were the NPR and PBS of the time (a famous consortium called itself Publius). Arguably, the crowning achievement of the time was the Declaration of Independence, with its soaring homage to rights, privileges and dignities that the writer had no intention on bestowing on the majority of New World inhabitants, let alone everyone.


Was it Upton Sinclair who said (from memory because I'm too lazy to look it up right now ;-), "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."

For all the reasons you describe, it is too difficult because understanding would present both the possibility of loss of self and loss of job.

Perhaps a more reasonable question might be, "Given their situation and circumstances, could we really expect PBS/NPR to act any other way?"

Don Levit

Both comments are excellent.
NoHype seems to be describing what generally occurs in groups - the leaders rise to the top and try to control the organization according to their vested interests.
Brian seems to suggest that the response from PBS was "natural," considering the circumstances.
It seems to me it takes an unusually strong person, with hard-rock principles and morals, to act any other way.
To act as they did, they retaim their sanity, by not being fully aware of what they are doing.
The other option is to be fully aware of what you are doing, and go insane.
Or, ideally, to be fully aware of what you are thinking of doing, and resisting those actions in favor of the "correct, unbiased" view and corresponding behavior.
Specifically, what is required in one's life experiences to act in the "correct, unbiased" way?
Don Levit


Another take on all this concerns the person we see in the mirror. Given that those who go along with the craziness you describe so eloquently are the majority, and those of us who refuse to deny that the Emperor is naked are doubtless in a small minority, it is us who are considered crazy because we don't sell out for a handful of dollar-crumbs off the dream-stealers' table.

This conflation of acknowledging reality with you-must-be-insane-not-to-play-the-game puts us under extreme stress. We either crack and join the bastards, or we go to our eventual deaths in lovely lonely isolation from most of our fellow Homonids.

I wonder how many of us in this category would be medically diagnosed as "depressed", simply because we are perennially pained by the flagrant idiocy of our fellow men but refuse to take the easy option of joining the majority with their snouts in the pig trough.


"full of absurdities"...like quantum theory. Fully grasped only if you stop making sense. They are all empty suits...in two places at once AND not anywhere at all. Empty suits.

"Shape without form, shade without colour,
Paralysed force, gesture without motion"

Mistah Kurtz - he dead.

Dave Cohen

... a penny for the Old Guy

-- Dave


Yep...but nowadays a penny won't do.


Don Levit

I hear you. I REALLY hear you.
Reminds me of a book written years ago by Erich Fromm entitled "The Sane Society."
Unlike a popular book that was published about 20 years later entitled "I'm Okay, You're Okay," Fromm's book could have a subtitle: "I'm Okay, You're Crazy!"
How about this "saying," which I made up: "I've never been so happy, since I realized how miserable I am."
Don Levit


I agree with Smith's criticisms of Republicans, but his chronology is liberal revisionist history, wherein Republicans have thwarted Democrat altruism at every turn. It's nice when the world is so simple as "us good, them bad", but it's exactly this sort of thinking that prevents honest criticism of one's own preferred party. Is the GOP the worse party? Maybe, but it's sort of like asking whether the excrement of a cat tastes worse than that of a dog. If Democrats were actually pro-environment and pro-labor, Smith might have a point, but they're only those things in terms of lip service, and I personally find pretense nauseating.

The comments to this entry are closed.