In 1513, Niccolo Machiavelli, the Florentine statesman who has been called the father of modern political science, published his best-known work: The Prince.
Niccolo Machiavelli
Among the issues he confronted was how to preserve liberty within a republic. And key to this was mediating the eternal struggle between the wealthy and the poor and middle class.
Machiavelli deeply distrusted the nobility because they stood above the law. He saw them as a major source of corruption because they could buy influence through patronage, favors or nepotism.
Successful political leaders must attain the support of the nobility or general populace. But since these groups have conflicting interests, the safest course is to choose the latter.
…He who becomes prince by help of the [wealthy] has greater difficulty in maintaining his power than he who is raised by the populace. He is surrounded by those who think themselves his equals, and is thus unable to direct or command as he pleases.
But one who is raised to leadership by popular favor finds himself alone, and has no one, or very few, who are not ready to obey him. [And] it is impossible to satisfy the [wealthy] by fair dealing and without inflicting injury upon others, whereas it is very easy to satisfy the mass of the people in this way.
For the aim of the people is more honest than that of the [wealthy], the latter desiring to oppress, and the former merely to avoid oppression. [And] the prince can never insure himself against a hostile population on account of their numbers, but he can against the hostility of the great, as they are but few.
The worst that a prince has to expect from a hostile people is to be abandoned, but from hostile nobles he has to fear not only desertion but their active opposition. And as they are more far seeing and more cunning, they are always in time to save themselves and take sides with the one who they expect will conquer.
The prince is, moreover, obliged to live always with the same people, but he can easily do without the same nobility, being able to make and unmake them at any time, and improve their position or deprive them of it as he pleases.
Unfortunately, political leaders throughout the world–including the United States–have ignored this sage advice.
The results of this wholesale favoring of the wealth and powerful have been brilliantly documented in a recent investigation of tax evasion by the world’s rich.
In 2012, Tax Justice Network, which campaigns to abolish tax havens, commissioned a study of their effect on the world’s economy.
The study was entitled, “The Price of Offshore Revisited: New Estimates for ‘Missing’ Global Private Wealth, Income, Inequality and Lost Taxes.”
http://www.taxjustice.net/cms/upload/pdf/Price_of_Offshore_Revisited_120722.pdf
The research was carried out by James Henry, former chief economist at consultants McKinsey & Co. Among its findings:
- By 2010, at least $21 to $32 trillion of the world’s private financial wealth had been invested virtually tax-free through more than 80 offshore secrecy jurisdictions.
- Since the 1970s, with eager (and often aggressive and illegal) assistance from the international private banking industry, private elites in 139 countries had accumulated $7.3 to $9.3 trillion of unrecorded offshore wealth by 2010.
- This happened while many of those countries’ public sectors were borrowing themselves into bankruptcy, suffering painful adjustment and low growth, and holding fire sales of public assets.
- The assets of these countries are held by a small number of wealthy individuals while the debts are shouldered by the ordinary people of these countries through their governments.
- The offshore industry is protected by pivate bankers, lawyers and accountants, who get paid handsomely to hide their clients’ assets and identities.
-
Bank regulators and central banks of most countries allow the world’s top tax havens and banks to hide the origins and ownership of assets under their supervision.
- Although multilateral institutions like the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), the IMF and the World Bank are supposedly insulated from politics, they have been highly compromised by the collective interests of Wall Street.
- These regulatory bodies have never required financial institutions to fully report their cross-border customer liabilities, deposits, customer assets under management or under custody.
- Less than 100,000 people, .001% of the world’s population, now control over 30% of the world’s financial wealth.
- Assuming that global offshore financial wealth of $21 trillion earns a total return of just 3% a year, and would have been taxed an average of 30% in the home country, this unrecorded wealth might have generated tax revenues of $189 billion per year.
Summing up this situation, the report notes: “We are up against one of society’s most well-entrenched interest groups. After all, there’s no interest group more rich and powerful than the rich and powerful.”
Fortunately, Machiavelli has supplied a timeless remedy to this increasingly dangerous situation:
- Assume evil among men–and most especially among those who possess the greatest concentration of wealth and power.
- Carefully monitor their activities–the way the FBI now regularly monitors those of the Mafia and major terrorist groups.
- Ruthlessly prosecute the treasonous crimes of the rich and powerful–and, upon their conviction, impose severe punishment.
ABC NEWS, ABRAHAM LINCOLN, ACADEMY OF MOTION PICTURE ARTS AND SCIENCES, ADELE, ANGELINA JOLIE, ANNE HATHAWAY, CBS NEWS, CNN, DANIEL DAY-LEWIS, FACEBOOK, GOLDFINGER, HALLE BARRY, JAMES BOND, JANE FONDA, JENNIFER LAWRENCE, MARISA TOMEI, MERYL STREEP, NAOMI WATTS, NBC NEWS, NICOLE KIDMAN, OSCARS, SETH MACFARLANE, SHIRLEY BASSEY, SKYFALL, TWITTER, WE SAW YOUR BOOBS
BOOBS AND BUREAUCRATS
In Bureaucracy, Social commentary on March 4, 2013 at 12:19 amThose who watched the 85th Academy Awards on February 24 witnessed some truly moving episodes:
But these wonderful episodes were proceeded by one that wasn’t so wonderful:
We saw your boobs
We saw your boobs
In the movie that we saw, we saw your boobs.
Meryl Streep, we saw your boobs in “Silkwood”
Naomi Watts’ in “Mulholland Drive”
Angelina Jolie, we saw your boobs in “Gia”
They made us feel excited and alive.
Yes, that was Seth MacFarlane’s opening number as host of the show.
As he danced and “sang” across the stage,, no doubt many viewers were stunned by the sheer juvenile antics of the segment. It was is if a classroom of junior high-school boys had been turned loose to “honor” the actresses they most wanted to boff.
Anne Hathaway, we saw your boobs in “Brokeback Mountain”
Halle Berry, we saw them in “Monster’s Ball”
Nicole Kidman in “Eyes Wide Shut”
Marisa Tomei in “The Wrestler,” but
We haven’t seen Jennifer Lawrence’s boobs at all.
Making it all the more bizarre: MacFarlane was accompanied by the Los Angeles Gay Men’s Chorus. For this group, the lyrics “We Saw Your Butt” would have been far more appropriate.
Here was a group of tuxedo-wearing men, supposedly paying tribute show to the greatest actresses in today’s Hollywood. So what did they “pay tribute” to?
The actresses’ singing talent?
Their acting talent?
Their greatest roles?
Don’t be stupid.
What the song failed to mention, however, was that several of the actress’ topless moments occurred during rape scenes.
Actress Jane Fonda–no stranger to sexually-alluring films–offered a scathing commentary on her website:
“I agree with someone who said, ‘If they want to stoop to that, why not list all the penises we’ve seen?’
“Better yet, remember that this is a telecast seen around the world watched by families with their children and to many this is neither appropriate or funny.”
So the question naturally arises: Why didn’t this occur to the men–and Hollywood is still almost entirely a man’s world–planning the 2013 Oscars?
This is, after all, Hollywood’s most important show. Those who oversee this event must decide:
Given the time and effort devoted to making this “Hollywood’s finest hour,” someone should have said: “This is a disgusting skit that will offend every actress at the ceremony–and God knows how many viewers!”
Many reviewers of the Oscars ceremony have put the blame entirely on MacFarlane. After all, the “humor” of the song was very much in keeping with the offensive material found in his comedy series, Family Guy.
One Family Guy show featured a musican number called “Down’s Syndrone Girl.” Among its lyrics:
You wanna take that little whore
And spin her on the dancing floor,
But boy, before you do a single twirl,
You must impress that effervescing,
Self-possessing, no BS-ing
Down’s Syndrome girl.
Click here: Family guy – that down syndrome girl – YouTube
But the Oscars isn’t a one-man show. It’s a huge assembly of talent–singers, dancers, choreographers, lighting technicians, makeup artists, special effects masters.
Not to mention a parade of distinguished actors, singers and directors chosen to present awards to those who are to be honored.
Any number of these people could have spoken up and said: “I refuse to be a part of a show that disgraces itself in this way.”
But if any one person must assume final blame for this number, it’s Howard Winchel “Hawk” Koch, Jr., the president of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.
Koch is a movie producer and assistant director, and the former road manager for the musical groups The Dave Clark Five and The Supremes.
Among the film successes with which he’s been involved: The Way We Were (1973); Chinatown (1974); Marathon Man (1976); Heaven Can Wait (1978).
Clearly the instincts that brought him so far through the entertainment business utterly failed him at the 2013 Oscars.
So, ultimately, the buck has to stop with Koch. But everyone else who held a supervisory position with the event stands equally guilty.
Share this: