ALL THAT MONEY THAT IS SUPPOSED TO GIVE ONE PEACE OF MIND IS AN
ILLUSION…THE GRAND JOKE IS THE MORE ONE GETS THE MORE INVERSE
BECOMES THE SECURITY….EG. A WEALTHY PARANOID HIRED A GREEN
BERET MALE NURSE AS AN AID…THE NURSE STARTED A FIRE IN THE
APARTMENT HOPING TO RESCUE THE EMPLOYER AND GAIN HIS
FAVOR…THE FIRE BECAME A MONSTER AND CONSUMED THE
WEALTHY..AND THE GREEN BERET SAVED ONLY HIMSELF AND IS JAILED..

Just another form of the Pinkertons, meant to intimidate, bully and scare any potential confrontations with consumers or investors.

Another reason for concealeded carry in all 50 states.

Just as the elite see no need for their tax dollars to fund universal health care, social security, unemployment insurance, or any other program geared toward the “welfare” of society in general, these bastians of democracy, christianity, and personal responsibility will next argue that tax funded law enforcement is unecessary since self protection is an individual responsibility. We see this trend in the destruction of governmental consumer protection agencies as well as the rise of private fire protection services provided to many of those exclusive gated communities strtegically placed around the nation away from the common riff-raff.

I do love many barking dogs, but do not engage
their opinions of either science or news -
especially when their failure to recognize what is
openly before their senses suggests that a test
for rabies is in order.

Alas ... we are not as a species this blind but
rather are made so by errors of thought that
deliver us beyond seeking the sense of things &
events; & by what is criminal, which is (let us say
for argument’s sake) manufactured ugliness &
falsity. Such is our culture’s oligarchical,
corporate & political bizzness, & is the bizzness
of Big Media to blast incessantly at us, to make
our brain pathways into alleyways which lead
only to ignorant, dead ends.

grokker: Probably I should have said “utterly lacking in value” rather than “one-sided.” (But on that score, this pitiful excuse for an article omits so many sides that require critical comment, that it needs more time than I wish to give it.
...“have expressed an increased need for bodyguards” (exactly who, why, how many etc. just vague allegations as basis)
...“recent neurological research ... (that suppressed fear etc.—what research, exactly?  and as if those conclusions were news!) i.e.“cannot help but reshape one’s mental structure.” (What about the “suppressed fear in the article and what it “reshapes”?)
... “making one more immune to other and more sociable feelings, thoughts and activities.”(The article itself does this!)
,,,“increases in crime” (Crime has actually been decreasing)
...(Re: pandering to fear and profiting from it) “a powerful marketing tool etc.”
...“there’s never been this kind of populist anger before” (hysterical untruth)
...“our business is better as the economy gets worse”
(Raises two questions:  Is TD’s business better for featuring articles like this?  What justifies giving precious publicity to this kind of cynicism?_
...“Ferraro “chalks it up to paranoia” ...an article in the WSJ ... ‘the sky is falling’ etc.” (patent evasion of responsibility,but author doesn’t bother to point it out.)

And after all that pandering,self-deceit (not facing the facts of what he is promoting, and pretending it is okay) ... after all the other crap, Ferraro’s better instincts take over (though he of course doesn’t realize it) (in fact he probably doesn’t even recognize that he still has any “better instincts”)  he ends up with “I sit down and talk with (people who try to get access to elites) and that is sometimes all people need.”

Then the final kiss-off:  A “street person” asks him for a dollar to “save the hungry people of Los Angeles.”

The entire article is so painfully inane, scornful and totally dispensable—is so utterly a-moral and void of common sense that in itself it arouses scorn and hatred or a twisted kind of envy or—worse yet—despair that in general things have sunk so low there is no need to suggest anything more or better.  Just twitch with tittilation and pass on.

So much for “the protection racket” as a constructive business activity worthy of “truth-digging.” Treating serioiusly, with a straight face, simply adds fuel to whatever rage might be brewing somewhere in the shadows. The question shouts to be asked: Should activities like these be featured, shorn as they are of all empathy or redeeming honesty—and with no redemption (context, alternative attitudes or explanation of causes) suggested?

Frankly, good editorial judgment would choose any one of hundreds of more helpful and necessary articles when such limited valuable space is available which reaches so many people day after day.
I do not associate this sort of thing with Robert Scheer’s notable history, and it makes me sadly disappointed.

grokker: Probably I should have said “utterly lacking in value” rather than “one-sided.” (But on that score, this pitiful excuse for an article omits so many sides that require critical comment, that it needs more time than I wish to give it.
...“have expressed an increased need for bodyguards” (exactly who, why, how many etc. just vague allegations as basis)
...“recent neurological research ... (that suppressed fear etc.—what research, exactly?  and as if those conclusions were news!) i.e.“cannot help but reshape one’s mental structure.” (What about the “suppressed fear in the article and what it “reshapes”?)
... “making one more immune to other and more sociable feelings, thoughts and activities.”(The article itself does this!)
,,,“increases in crime” (Crime has actually been decreasing)
...(Re: pandering to fear and profiting from it) “a powerful marketing tool etc.”
...“there’s never been this kind of populist anger before” (hysterical untruth)
...“our business is better as the economy gets worse”
(Raises two questions:  Is TD’s business better for featuring articles like this?  What justifies giving precious publicity to this kind of cynicism?_
...“Ferraro “chalks it up to paranoia” ...an article in the WSJ ... ‘the sky is falling’ etc.” (patent evasion of responsibility,but author doesn’t bother to point it out.)

And after all that pandering,self-deceit (not facing the facts of what he is promoting, and pretending it is okay) ... after all the other crap, Ferraro’s better instincts take over (though he of course doesn’t realize it) (in fact he probably doesn’t even recognize that he still has any “better instincts”)  he ends up with “I sit down and talk with (people who try to get access to elites) and that is sometimes all people need.”

Then the final kiss-off:  A “street person” asks him for a dollar to “save the hungry people of Los Angeles.”

The entire article is so painfully inane, scornful and totally dispensable—is so utterly a-moral and void of common sense that in itself it arouses scorn and hatred or a twisted kind of envy or—worse yet—despair that in general things have sunk so low there is no need to suggest anything more or better.  Just twitch with tittilation and pass on.

So much for “the protection racket” as a constructive business activity worthy of “truth-digging.” Treating serioiusly, with a straight face, simply adds fuel to whatever rage might be brewing somewhere in the shadows. The question shouts to be asked: Should activities like these be featured, shorn as they are of all empathy or redeeming honesty—and with no redemption (context, alternative attitudes or explanation of causes) suggested?

Frankly, good editorial judgment would choose any one of hundreds of more helpful and necessary articles when such limited valuable space is available which reaches so many people day after day.
I do not associate this sort of thing with Robert Scheer’s notable history, and it makes me sadly disappointed.

@gerard—- “Articles like this are so one-sided as to be downright pernicious.”

So, gerard what would the other side be?

Oh, for the happy life of the “super-rich” full of fear and the pangs of a guilty conscience.  Oh, for the happy life of their bodyguards, “preparing a table before them in the presence of their enemies,” etc. And of course Oh, for the happy lives of all the rest of us being surveilled, nailed and jailed.

Articles like this are so one-sided as to be downright pernicious.  What are Truthdig editors thinking?  The mainstream press eats up stuff like this, and Fox is made absolutely ecstatic. Isn’t yelling fire in a crowded theater known to be counter-productive?

And here’s one just for laughs:  “The tendency of business leaders to think over the horizon and anticipate problems” is given as justification for the dirty business of fear-mongering.  It’s just the fact that so many “business leaders” are NOT “thinking over the horizon” which is at the root of our problems these days.

Remember in 08 after the financial meltdown Goldman Sachs employees were arming themselves?

Ha ha!  They know we’re coming to get them. London-style.