Complicity and _GR_ (was and still is Re: IBM, Disney, Bush: Nazis?)

[calbert at tiac.net]

jbor:
> What is less defensible is the
> filibustering and inflammatory rhetoric which greets these reports,
> the overt or covert ulterior motives of the filibusters to discredit
> the Bushes, 

I applaud the principle, but find its application to this specific case - 
particularly from jbor, puzzling. To tar today's IBM with the sins of 
Tom Watson is specious, the same could be said for Microturd and 
Disney - but the Famiglia Bush has not modified its MO in the least. 
The sins of the grandfather Prescott are reflected in the actions of 
George Sr., his brother Prescott, and George Sr.s three sons. 

For a REASONED account of their many misdeeds, covering the 
last thirty or so years, I ASK jbor just to take a minute and scan the 
following

http://www.mediafilter.org/MFF/BushFamilyPreys.html

For reasons I cannot fathom the extensive footnotes which were 
once provided with the story have been excised, but I can confirm 
that much of what is told has been reported in the Wall Street 
Journal. For the purposes of this discussion I care less about the 
particulars than I do about their infinite repetition and the attendant 
impunity.

I would also urge jbor, or anyone else who may be in doubt to 
investigate the tale of George Jr. and the Texas Rangers Stadium 
deal. But for the fact that one of the houses they stole belonged to 
another Texas power posse, the Curtis Mathes Television heirs, we 
may never have known the extent of the perfidy associated with this 
matter. 

http://www.georgebush2000.com/Baseball3-Mathes.html

After reading this story, a reasonabale person might ask why it 
received LESS media coverage than the alleged "overstatements" of 
Al Gore, which consumed an inordinate amount of soy ink. Once 
that nut is breached, the question of media complicity in the painting 
of an emtirely false picture of the candidate gains velocity.

The Pynchon connection? Ironically, I see it as follows - 

There is a good reason, beyond its functionality in the picaresque 
realm, for Pynchon's use of the schlemiel. Such a figure finds it 
sufficiently impossible to "order" the inanimate - how can any entity 
or clique hope to "order" anything as complex "history"? Yes,  all 
P.s work deals with forces which strive to effect such controll, but 
I've never gotten the sense that he is resigned to their success in 
such efforts - quite the contrary. Furthermore, he hints at a 
hierarchy in which such actors may themselves simply be the tools 
of "higher" powers. Hence the "six degrees of separation" between a 
Slothrop and I. G. Farben may not only be one of associations but 
also of "purpose" and , ultimately "effect".

That such entities may "pass on" objectives or methods to 
successors reflects, imho, not necessarily the immutability of their 
purposes and ultimate success, but rather the echoes of the 
discreet elements which retain a degree of utility, but won't 
necessarily do so for many more generations. Entropy applies no 
less to the TANGIBLE manifestations of power than it does to its loci 
of concentration. Coming full circle, I would suggest that such an 
interpretation is consistent with the principle, if not necessarily the 
specific ( the Bush example), of Jbor's argument. 

love,
cfa 

How about an update on the Manly-Warringha (sp.?) Sea Eagles?