They fear regulation more than ridicule. If they really feared ridicule, they wouldn’t have stepped into the limelight like they have. Regulation would actually affect their bottom line. Insult is more often viewed as a badge of honor, however. In their minds, they’d see this “commercial” as a few brainless hippies jabbering while wearing and using their products (and they are doing that). This stuff is water off a duck’s back to the Kochs. Stopping pipelines, regulating industrial pollution, taxing industry, putting a price on carbon, and placing the environment before economic gain is not.
Oh yeah? Then why do they hide out from the media and give only fluff interviews with friendly sources? Talk to the ghost of Boss Tweed about the effects of ridicule in the media.
These guys aren’t “hiding” from the media, and they have a lot thicker skin than you seem to think. Also, they aren’t corrupt in the sense of Tweed. They work within the system (they are legal), they aren’t elected politicians, and they know they live in the information age. They can’t hide, and they don’t. They’ve been ridiculed in the media for several years now. I don’t see a difference from it except that they’re ramping up their political funding to the tune of $889 million in the 2016 elections.
Guys like this don’t care what a handful of liberals think about them.
Also, the “evil” thing with the Kochs only has so much mileage. It’s a simplistic label that can be easily countered. The “evil thing” video above is cute, but I’d guess it only made 500 or so people think they took a brave stand against the Kochs. Charles, Fred, and David probably weren’t even there at the time, and the wealthy arts patrons attending the show likely had little idea what was taking place outside, or even cared.
You call that Think Progress thing an “interview”? I would sooner call it a setup by Koch and his minion. Koch gets a chance to spout some fine-sounding horsepucky and look somewhat reasonable, the “interviewer” gets to look like a somewhat hysterical ambusher in the eyes of the “righties”, and the “minion” was probably chuckling to himself as he protested and thinking that the whole thing was not going to hurt Koch very much.
You’re right that they don’t so much as “hide” as they just let the arrows bounce off their thick skins. They’re too busy buying the country through buying off the the media with ad money and the politicians with campaign contributions to worry about mosquito bites.
Loading...
No, it’s not a real interview in the way that it was a sanctioned affair. It’s not a Koch setup, either.
To be fair with John, the Kochs aren’t Kim Kardashian. They do try to separate themselves from the media more often then not and they are vigilant about damage control when they are in the media. Also. If I had to place a bet, it would be that they aren’t true sociopaths – so ridicule is likely to have some effect (that they would fear it over anything else is another story).
They’re not “true” sociopaths, you say? Have to disagree, but the massive lack of empathy and concern for others (and the planet) that they display with their support of fossil fuels exploitation and climate change denial is enough to confirm the diagnosis. You are, IMO, engaged in some wishful thinking and being too kind.
Have you read “The Sociopath Next Door”? A good read in which a case is made that 1 out of 25 Americans is sociopathic to the point of being harmful to others, and the Kochs fit the bill. The harm may not be so deliberate and face-to-face, and is being dealt out by “minions” with many degrees of separation, but the fact remains that the “brains” (and sociopathy) behind it all are the Kochs.
He’s the nominal head of Americans for Prosperity and has been a factor in blocking climate change action. It’s not a wonder why he loses his humor in the second video. He seems a bit scared to me even. David Koch just seems confused. My read on him is that he’s a true ideologue who has been affirmed all his life. He has seen the world from one perspective his whole life so thoroughly that any other belief system is not only wrong but preposterous. I question if he’s really thought deeply about any of this stuff.
DOG – well, just on the odds, the chances that both Charles and David are that 1 in 25 are pretty slim. They are ideologues, but are they actual sociopaths? I tend to doubt it. They really believe in what they are doing. Sociopathy isn’t needed there – just a strong enough belief.
There’s a strong tendency to oversimplify these guys. I think oversimplification can create more problems than solutions, but really understanding who they are and why they are that way is more likely to lead to effective countermeasures.
Loading...
No, no, no! You’re looking through the wrong end of the telescope. Rather than ask if they fit the 1 in 25 odds, you should start from the other end—-the results—-in that they APPEAR to be 2 of the sociopaths out of 50—-and work back to the root cause, that they actually ARE. The “results” are two men with more money than they know what to do with who are spending some of it on subverting American democracy, spreading lies and untruths, and showing NO concern for the greater good of the country or mankind. Their focus is on accumulating even more wealth, and by doing it through exploiting and profiting from fossil fuels, and with total disregard for the damage they are doing. That is beyond “ideology” and is sociopathic (and sociopathy is not defined by “beliefs” but by behaviors).
“There’s a strong tendency to oversimplify these guys. I think oversimplification can create more problems than solutions, but really understanding who they are and why they are that way is more likely to lead to effective countermeasures”?
That is fine-sounding, but begs the point. What are the “problems” you see created, and what “understanding”s will lead to what “effective countermeasures”. IMO, it is not oversimplification to look at them and see the uncomplicated reasons for their behavior—-sociopathy, an overblown sense of entitlement, and simple greed.
Loading...
The ghost of Boss Tweed can tell us about things that happened 150 years ago, but we live in a far different society and “media world” today. Apples and oranges.
Maybe we should talk about the effect of ridicule on more contemporary figures? Like Trump? Or Dukakis and his tank?
But again, unlike Tweed and Palin, the Kochs aren’t candidates. I just commented here to the notion that they fear ridicule more than anything else. I think ridicule has little effect on them, and they fear some other things a lot more.
Ridicule can move actual policy, yes, but I think an “evil” label with the Kochs might make us feel better, but it won’t have real power. It is a paper thin critique and it can be easily answered (see Barbara Walters interview of David Koch). They can just pull a Rockefeller and build another hospital.
Loading...
The key words there are “bottom line”. IMO, that is the ONLY thing that motivates the Kochs and all the other plutocrats, corporatists, and free-marketers. You can ridicule them all you want as long as you don’t cause their profits to drop—-they will laugh all the way to the bank.
PS I used to make Bob Livingston angry over at Personal Liberty Digest—-by making fun of him and saying that he and his ilk were just like Scrooge McDuck—-that they had basements full of money that they swam in while everyone else struggled to get by. The Koch’s are far beyond that stage—-as you say, ridicule to them is water off a duck’s back.
The thing is, the Kochs see themselves as the “good guys”. In their view, they strengthen the United States with jobs, goods, and energy. In their ideology, anything hampering this goal is seen as misguided. They would see the above “evil thing” ad as a symptom of that confusion, especially as several of the participants are wearing nylon, polyester, or a lycra that came from them, the food they ate probably used their fertilizers, the energy used to show the projection could likely be sourced in some way to them, and even the computer projection itself likely had a Molex product in it somewhere.
Use a Bounty paper towel – that’s them. Their products are in insulation, asphalt, biodiesels, clothing, mobile devices, fiber optics, agriculture, and steel. They also provide a good portion of the energy the country uses to maintain this fooknut way of life.
The politicians they support are the ones that will work to create an easier path to economic expansion (especially their own expansion). This is why they throw their money around like they do. They really, really believe in this stuff.
“showing NO concern for the greater good of the country or mankind.”
That’s the thing – they believe in the exact opposite. And if ones sees economic growth and U.S. economic and military power as the marker for the “greater good”, they have a strong case. All they have to do to counter the “evil” label is point these things out to the American public. They could also mention their millions in charitable donations.
“What are the “problems” you see created, and what “understanding”s will lead to what “effective countermeasures”.”
The problem is that our current way of life is sucking up future prosperity for present prosperity. We need to limit and control our actions in the present to give our descendants a decent future, and we’re not doing that. The libertarian ideology embraced by the Kochs fails to acknowledge the environmental and resource dangers looming in our future, and actively seeks to increase the damage in the present. Additionally, they use their money to deceive and confuse the public about environmental issues. This is unforgivable on a historical level.
But just calling them “evil” (or using any other term to mean the same thing) is playground stuff. It won’t stick, because it’s essentially meaningless to the worldview that embraces growthism and American power before environmental protection. We’d be better served by sticking to the nobility of environmental protection, having an understanding of why that’s essential, and pushing that part of the discussion. If we’re reduced to ad hominems, we shouldn’t be surprised to see our position marginalized by the majority.
Nice, that’s a commercial that I liked. First time for that; ever.
I’m sure the one thing the Kochs fear more than anything is ridicule.
They fear regulation more than ridicule. If they really feared ridicule, they wouldn’t have stepped into the limelight like they have. Regulation would actually affect their bottom line. Insult is more often viewed as a badge of honor, however. In their minds, they’d see this “commercial” as a few brainless hippies jabbering while wearing and using their products (and they are doing that). This stuff is water off a duck’s back to the Kochs. Stopping pipelines, regulating industrial pollution, taxing industry, putting a price on carbon, and placing the environment before economic gain is not.
Oh yeah? Then why do they hide out from the media and give only fluff interviews with friendly sources? Talk to the ghost of Boss Tweed about the effects of ridicule in the media.
USA Today and the Washington Post are fluffy, friendly sources? How about Barbara Walters? Think Progress?:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqhXNzQhG1c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfnAWjCKJIw
These guys aren’t “hiding” from the media, and they have a lot thicker skin than you seem to think. Also, they aren’t corrupt in the sense of Tweed. They work within the system (they are legal), they aren’t elected politicians, and they know they live in the information age. They can’t hide, and they don’t. They’ve been ridiculed in the media for several years now. I don’t see a difference from it except that they’re ramping up their political funding to the tune of $889 million in the 2016 elections.
Guys like this don’t care what a handful of liberals think about them.
Also, the “evil” thing with the Kochs only has so much mileage. It’s a simplistic label that can be easily countered. The “evil thing” video above is cute, but I’d guess it only made 500 or so people think they took a brave stand against the Kochs. Charles, Fred, and David probably weren’t even there at the time, and the wealthy arts patrons attending the show likely had little idea what was taking place outside, or even cared.
You call that Think Progress thing an “interview”? I would sooner call it a setup by Koch and his minion. Koch gets a chance to spout some fine-sounding horsepucky and look somewhat reasonable, the “interviewer” gets to look like a somewhat hysterical ambusher in the eyes of the “righties”, and the “minion” was probably chuckling to himself as he protested and thinking that the whole thing was not going to hurt Koch very much.
You’re right that they don’t so much as “hide” as they just let the arrows bounce off their thick skins. They’re too busy buying the country through buying off the the media with ad money and the politicians with campaign contributions to worry about mosquito bites.
No, it’s not a real interview in the way that it was a sanctioned affair. It’s not a Koch setup, either.
To be fair with John, the Kochs aren’t Kim Kardashian. They do try to separate themselves from the media more often then not and they are vigilant about damage control when they are in the media. Also. If I had to place a bet, it would be that they aren’t true sociopaths – so ridicule is likely to have some effect (that they would fear it over anything else is another story).
True sociopaths, in that they actually can’t feel shame or guilt – probably not. Jerks? I remember reading this story somewhere a while back:
http://nypost.com/2013/12/24/how-scrooges-of-park-avenue-stiff-doormen/
They’re not “true” sociopaths, you say? Have to disagree, but the massive lack of empathy and concern for others (and the planet) that they display with their support of fossil fuels exploitation and climate change denial is enough to confirm the diagnosis. You are, IMO, engaged in some wishful thinking and being too kind.
Have you read “The Sociopath Next Door”? A good read in which a case is made that 1 out of 25 Americans is sociopathic to the point of being harmful to others, and the Kochs fit the bill. The harm may not be so deliberate and face-to-face, and is being dealt out by “minions” with many degrees of separation, but the fact remains that the “brains” (and sociopathy) behind it all are the Kochs.
BTW – the “minion” is Tim Phillips:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Phillips_(political_strategist)
Also:
http://www.desmogblog.com/tim-phillips
He’s the nominal head of Americans for Prosperity and has been a factor in blocking climate change action. It’s not a wonder why he loses his humor in the second video. He seems a bit scared to me even. David Koch just seems confused. My read on him is that he’s a true ideologue who has been affirmed all his life. He has seen the world from one perspective his whole life so thoroughly that any other belief system is not only wrong but preposterous. I question if he’s really thought deeply about any of this stuff.
The third video is also telling – link follows.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xug0EYXn6Gc
Citizens United? Koch doesn’t even know what it is at first.
The interviewer – Lee Fang:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Fang
DOG – well, just on the odds, the chances that both Charles and David are that 1 in 25 are pretty slim. They are ideologues, but are they actual sociopaths? I tend to doubt it. They really believe in what they are doing. Sociopathy isn’t needed there – just a strong enough belief.
There’s a strong tendency to oversimplify these guys. I think oversimplification can create more problems than solutions, but really understanding who they are and why they are that way is more likely to lead to effective countermeasures.
No, no, no! You’re looking through the wrong end of the telescope. Rather than ask if they fit the 1 in 25 odds, you should start from the other end—-the results—-in that they APPEAR to be 2 of the sociopaths out of 50—-and work back to the root cause, that they actually ARE. The “results” are two men with more money than they know what to do with who are spending some of it on subverting American democracy, spreading lies and untruths, and showing NO concern for the greater good of the country or mankind. Their focus is on accumulating even more wealth, and by doing it through exploiting and profiting from fossil fuels, and with total disregard for the damage they are doing. That is beyond “ideology” and is sociopathic (and sociopathy is not defined by “beliefs” but by behaviors).
“There’s a strong tendency to oversimplify these guys. I think oversimplification can create more problems than solutions, but really understanding who they are and why they are that way is more likely to lead to effective countermeasures”?
That is fine-sounding, but begs the point. What are the “problems” you see created, and what “understanding”s will lead to what “effective countermeasures”. IMO, it is not oversimplification to look at them and see the uncomplicated reasons for their behavior—-sociopathy, an overblown sense of entitlement, and simple greed.
The ghost of Boss Tweed can tell us about things that happened 150 years ago, but we live in a far different society and “media world” today. Apples and oranges.
Maybe we should talk about the effect of ridicule on more contemporary figures? Like Trump? Or Dukakis and his tank?
Trump has been ridiculed for decades. He’s now leading the GOP nominees.
Perhaps the most savage ridiculing of a politician in the recent past was Tina Fey’s impersonation of Sarah Palin. It was dead on, hilarious, and brutal. It’s also legitimate to say it had an effect on the race:
http://www.psmag.com/business-economics/was-sarah-palins-image-hurt-by-tina-fey-you-betcha-40288
But again, unlike Tweed and Palin, the Kochs aren’t candidates. I just commented here to the notion that they fear ridicule more than anything else. I think ridicule has little effect on them, and they fear some other things a lot more.
Ridicule can move actual policy, yes, but I think an “evil” label with the Kochs might make us feel better, but it won’t have real power. It is a paper thin critique and it can be easily answered (see Barbara Walters interview of David Koch). They can just pull a Rockefeller and build another hospital.
The key words there are “bottom line”. IMO, that is the ONLY thing that motivates the Kochs and all the other plutocrats, corporatists, and free-marketers. You can ridicule them all you want as long as you don’t cause their profits to drop—-they will laugh all the way to the bank.
PS I used to make Bob Livingston angry over at Personal Liberty Digest—-by making fun of him and saying that he and his ilk were just like Scrooge McDuck—-that they had basements full of money that they swam in while everyone else struggled to get by. The Koch’s are far beyond that stage—-as you say, ridicule to them is water off a duck’s back.
DOG – starting a new thread here.
The thing is, the Kochs see themselves as the “good guys”. In their view, they strengthen the United States with jobs, goods, and energy. In their ideology, anything hampering this goal is seen as misguided. They would see the above “evil thing” ad as a symptom of that confusion, especially as several of the participants are wearing nylon, polyester, or a lycra that came from them, the food they ate probably used their fertilizers, the energy used to show the projection could likely be sourced in some way to them, and even the computer projection itself likely had a Molex product in it somewhere.
Use a Bounty paper towel – that’s them. Their products are in insulation, asphalt, biodiesels, clothing, mobile devices, fiber optics, agriculture, and steel. They also provide a good portion of the energy the country uses to maintain this fooknut way of life.
Here’s Charles Koch’s new book:
http://www.goodprofitbook.com/
The politicians they support are the ones that will work to create an easier path to economic expansion (especially their own expansion). This is why they throw their money around like they do. They really, really believe in this stuff.
“showing NO concern for the greater good of the country or mankind.”
That’s the thing – they believe in the exact opposite. And if ones sees economic growth and U.S. economic and military power as the marker for the “greater good”, they have a strong case. All they have to do to counter the “evil” label is point these things out to the American public. They could also mention their millions in charitable donations.
“What are the “problems” you see created, and what “understanding”s will lead to what “effective countermeasures”.”
The problem is that our current way of life is sucking up future prosperity for present prosperity. We need to limit and control our actions in the present to give our descendants a decent future, and we’re not doing that. The libertarian ideology embraced by the Kochs fails to acknowledge the environmental and resource dangers looming in our future, and actively seeks to increase the damage in the present. Additionally, they use their money to deceive and confuse the public about environmental issues. This is unforgivable on a historical level.
But just calling them “evil” (or using any other term to mean the same thing) is playground stuff. It won’t stick, because it’s essentially meaningless to the worldview that embraces growthism and American power before environmental protection. We’d be better served by sticking to the nobility of environmental protection, having an understanding of why that’s essential, and pushing that part of the discussion. If we’re reduced to ad hominems, we shouldn’t be surprised to see our position marginalized by the majority.