ATG Mail: Sleaze And Ostentation
Like to read other people's mail? Well, have at it. The Against the Grain inbox is open for your perusal. And by the way, this is not a blog.
Aggressive Ostentation
Many readers agree that there is too much in the way of conspicuous consumption these days, but agree that it has always existed in some form. One reader suggested church as an antidote. Another thanked me for improving their vocabulary!
I read your thoughts as you see fit to print them. I do not usually reply as I am sure you have way more things to do than to read my thoughts, but I have always thought that we can and should learn from our collective past. Your article on how things change, but will forever remain the same was well thought out and articulate. Not that the folks that should see themselves in it ever will, but thanks for pointing it out just the same. It heartens me to know I am not the only one that feels this way.
Anne Hebert
Nice to see erudition in you opinion piece. I too read, but admittedly did not thoroughly understand Thornstein Veblen's theory of the leisure class.
He did, as you said, speak about people doing things in excess to establish their place and status in society. I do not believe that modern society is necessarily more materialistic than the era that Veblen lived in.
If you read about the Vanderbilts and Rockefellers who referred to mansions as their summer cottages and the reference to the 1890's as the gilded age, I don't think we can say modern wealth is any less or more generous.
Note the huge sums of money that people like Bill Gates and Ted Turner give to charities.
I will note though that many of the wealthy of the gilded age did give substantial parts of their money away. Ford, who was extremely corrupt, still gave large parts of his fortune away — much went to the church. Andrew Carnegie also donated huge sums of money while his business practices were hugely corrupt.
I think in sum that corruption and charity still exist in the same people and in the same proportion. Our society is still more prosperous and people have more and more dependable income than they once had.
Alan Robisch
I could not agree with you more, we are a mobile, wealth chasing, impetuous society. And just how happy do you think the ordinary person is?
As far as community, my wife and children live in South Florida, over 1,500 miles from where we grew up, and we have no immediate family geographically close to us. But what we do have is a church family. The coffee shop where I go (not Starbucks) is owned by a church member; the plumber we use is from the church; the electrician we use is from the church; our insurance agent is from the church; the manager of the local grocery store we use sings in the choir with my wife; the manger of the bank we use is from the church; the company my wife works for is owned by a member of the church, etc. etc. etc.
A sense of Community is of your own cultivation and a good church has always provided thus. I am stuck with my family by blood, but my church is of my choosing and will become what I make of it. Living in "Pagan Central" which is how I refer to South Florida, would be a very depressing place except for my brothers and Sisters in Christ and they truly come in all shapes and sizes. What we may lack in geographic closeness to home and family can be replaced. Other attributes that come from the church are humility, shared resources, and a very extended family. The only institution that sort of mirrors this very situation is the Military. Is there any wonder why the most feared organizations of the Liberal Left are these very two institutions?
You can have your Aggressive Ostentation, and wealth accumulation. You cannot take it with you, and it brings no true happiness. The only thing that will really protect us is personal responsibility, and accountability to each other for the common good. Everything else is a waste of time and crap.
Bob Achenbach
This article was almost above my "booklearning" but I found it to be very interesting, educational and entertaining. Thanks.
M. Twaro
PS. Good for my vocabulary also!21st Century Sleaze
Well, I was both congratulated and vilified on my take of L'Affaire Abramoff. Some readers are very unhappy with what's going on up on Capitol Hill, and don't think things will improve much.
Nice article...I admire anyone who keeps the light on what is happening in the dark corners of Washington.
Your use of Abramoff's doublespeak about the Choctaw's to characterize him as a supervillian lacked punch though, as that same method is used by virtually every politician in Washington. This is exemplified by the sudden 'charitable' return of his donations by politicians who obviously knew that they were accepting his ill gotten gains. Everyone who took his contributions and returned them at the first sign of public controversy is just as villainous and false as Abramoff himself, including the President.
Daniel Brannon
This article is a perfect example of liberal bias in the CBS/media. Is Meyer's argument/statement or what-have-you correct? Yes. Did Republicans deal with this shady character? Yes. Should there be an investigation? Yes. Any wrong doing punished? Yes. And the $64,000 question is (drum roll)…were there Democrats on this take as well? YES (about 40 of them apparently). Not one time did you mention this fact in the article. You are only reporting/focusing on one side of the story whether right or wrong. Sorry folks, the days of conveniently leaving out little factoids are long gone. Best regards.
Matt Wickert
Outstanding article. Please continue and maybe someone will hear you and do something.
Again, outstanding.
Parks
Greed is only half the equation when it comes to the public's perception of this administration and this congress. The other half is readily apparent in this line from your piece: "Few members have real power any more; power in Congress entails either expertise or seniority and with each passing year, fewer and fewer members are interested in acquiring those assets." You can sum it up in one word...incompetence. I think the average voter connects the two.
You say these scandals don't matter much in a time of war. I believe the average voter extends the greed/incompetence connection to the war in Iraq. I don't think he or she is all that deluded about the war. We got there through greed (oil) and incompetence (WMD). Polls show the voters have already figured this out. That, as much as the scandals currently rocking Washington, is what will stay on their minds the next time they enter a voting booth.
They won't blame just the White House, either. They'll blame every member of Congress, Republican and Democrat, who blindly followed the administration's lead instead of doing their job, all the while racking up obscene amounts of money from the likes of Jack Abramoff.
I agree with you. I don't expect major reform to come out of this mess. We can throw the rascals out but there's a good chance we'll just elect another group of rascals. Save this column. It'll probably be pertinent again in a few years.
Randi Gifford
P.S. I'll never understand how Ted Kennedy survived the Chappaquiddick scandal. It should've buried him politically for the rest of his life. All I can figure is the voters of Massachusetts gave him a pass because he was Jack's brother. At least the electorate in the rest of the country saw through it. If they hadn't, he'd have been President.
If you still want to send in an e-mail, you'll have to read a real column to find the address.