I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
Moral Man and Immoral Society.
Which is a sexist title. Just sayin'
Robert, you always raise such interesting questions. Now I'm going to have to go check this book out of the library, I think.
Moral Man and Immoral Society.
Which is a sexist title. Just sayin'
Robert, you always raise such interesting questions. Now I'm going to have to go check this book out of the library, I think.
So Robert, is this the tallest pulpit you've ever had? How does it feel?
So Robert, is this the tallest pulpit you've ever had? How does it feel?
Which brings us to the political question: can we change the world? Or only ourselves?
False dichotomy?
Which brings us to the political question: can we change the world? Or only ourselves?
False dichotomy?
of course we can change the world-isn't the enlightenment of societies by individuals coming together what causes civilization to advance?
of course we can change the world-isn't the enlightenment of societies by individuals coming together what causes civilization to advance?
So Robert, is this the tallest pulpit you've ever had? How does it feel?
Just as I feared. Given the keys to the liquor cabinet, I'm proceeding to go through all the scotch.
Makes me dour. And prone to preaching....
So Robert, is this the tallest pulpit you've ever had? How does it feel?
Just as I feared. Given the keys to the liquor cabinet, I'm proceeding to go through all the scotch.
Makes me dour. And prone to preaching....
Which brings us to the political question: can we change the world? Or only ourselves?
False dichotomy?
Yeah, really. Meant to be more of a chicken/egg question: which comes first?
Which brings us to the political question: can we change the world? Or only ourselves?
False dichotomy?
Yeah, really. Meant to be more of a chicken/egg question: which comes first?
i wanna make sure this Larry Kramer speech gets linked here!!!!!!!!
i wanna make sure this Larry Kramer speech gets linked here!!!!!!!!
Robert,
You're going a bit fast for me. Indivuals can make moral decisions that affect them adversely; usually, they don't. And societies are never exactly societies at all, but accumulations of different groups and subgroups, each with differing identities and agendas.
Just curious about your conceptions of individul and group agency.
And stuff.
Robert,
You're going a bit fast for me. Indivuals can make moral decisions that affect them adversely; usually, they don't. And societies are never exactly societies at all, but accumulations of different groups and subgroups, each with differing identities and agendas.
Just curious about your conceptions of individul and group agency.
And stuff.
We can change only ourselves.
Sometimes I can make my wife do stuff, but not often. As I tell her, she is refractory, and precipitous.
We can change only ourselves.
Sometimes I can make my wife do stuff, but not often. As I tell her, she is refractory, and precipitous.
Weenie Bush can surmount all odds....
From Democratic Underground
ONE OUT OF 4 AND A HALF BILLION ODDS
Posted by TruthIsAll
Added to homepage Fri Nov 26th 2004, 02:39 AM ET
Those are the odds that Kerry's EXIT poll percentage would EXCEED his ACTUAL reported vote percentage by MORE THAN THE MARGIN OF ERROR in 16 out of 51 States by chance alone. That is exactly what occurred on Nov. 2.
Anyone "lucky" enough to win against those odds can win anything.
Weenie Bush can surmount all odds....
From Democratic Underground
ONE OUT OF 4 AND A HALF BILLION ODDS
Posted by TruthIsAll
Added to homepage Fri Nov 26th 2004, 02:39 AM ET
Those are the odds that Kerry's EXIT poll percentage would EXCEED his ACTUAL reported vote percentage by MORE THAN THE MARGIN OF ERROR in 16 out of 51 States by chance alone. That is exactly what occurred on Nov. 2.
Anyone "lucky" enough to win against those odds can win anything.
i especially like this part.
We continue without surcease to be and remain,
endlessly, day after day, helpless victims. "In my country when they
raise the bus fares, we burn the buses," a Brazilian journalist said to
me as she watched a sparsely attended Act Up demonstration.
i especially like this part.
We continue without surcease to be and remain,
endlessly, day after day, helpless victims. "In my country when they
raise the bus fares, we burn the buses," a Brazilian journalist said to
me as she watched a sparsely attended Act Up demonstration.
what causes civilization to advance?
Do they advance? Are we advanced over Rome? In what? That we've removed brutality from arm's lengths transactions (Josephus described the siege of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. as leaving the streets knee deep in blood; women, children, elderly; everyone was slaughtered by Roman soldiers with short swords) to missile range (we've destroyed most of Fallujah, in the name of saving it. Civilians are now "collateral damage.").
What advance, then? What progress?
Too many questions, and now I gotta go....
One last thing:
Moral Man and Immoral Society.
Which is a sexist title. Just sayin'
Yeah. It came out in the '20's, so....(*shrug*)
what causes civilization to advance?
Do they advance? Are we advanced over Rome? In what? That we've removed brutality from arm's lengths transactions (Josephus described the siege of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. as leaving the streets knee deep in blood; women, children, elderly; everyone was slaughtered by Roman soldiers with short swords) to missile range (we've destroyed most of Fallujah, in the name of saving it. Civilians are now "collateral damage.").
What advance, then? What progress?
Too many questions, and now I gotta go....
One last thing:
Moral Man and Immoral Society.
Which is a sexist title. Just sayin'
Yeah. It came out in the '20's, so....(*shrug*)
"Which brings us to the political question: can we change the world? Or only ourselves? And which one do we start with?"
This is the sort of sermon that is properly reserved for the hours 8.30am - 1.30pm, Sunday. With a period of contemplation intervening, and a return bout, 6.00-9.30pm.
However, and not to slight the ambition the very best I can seem to manage these days is to change the sheets. Which I shall now go do....
"Which brings us to the political question: can we change the world? Or only ourselves? And which one do we start with?"
This is the sort of sermon that is properly reserved for the hours 8.30am - 1.30pm, Sunday. With a period of contemplation intervening, and a return bout, 6.00-9.30pm.
However, and not to slight the ambition the very best I can seem to manage these days is to change the sheets. Which I shall now go do....
jeffers - good post.
it answers itself, though: all change comes from within first, then outward, slowly, slowly, until the impact of the internal is made external.
i know that's how i've effected change in my life, when it (frequently) needed it - by changing something i didn't like within myself. it had the impact of changing how i, say, ran my business, which affected (hopefully positively) my employees, which then clearly affected the lives of those they care for.
so yes, start from within.
and keep posting! you're a good and interesting writer.
jeffers - good post.
it answers itself, though: all change comes from within first, then outward, slowly, slowly, until the impact of the internal is made external.
i know that's how i've effected change in my life, when it (frequently) needed it - by changing something i didn't like within myself. it had the impact of changing how i, say, ran my business, which affected (hopefully positively) my employees, which then clearly affected the lives of those they care for.
so yes, start from within.
and keep posting! you're a good and interesting writer.
You're going a bit fast for me. Indivuals can make moral decisions that affect them adversely; usually, they don't. And societies are never exactly societies at all, but accumulations of different groups and subgroups, each with differing identities and agendas.
But the difference between "enlightened self-interest" and a moral decision, is the extent to which it is directly contrary to my self-interest, but necessary for the group as a whole (or the moral rule agreed upon, depending on whether your definition of "ethics" is rooted in Aristotle, or in Aquinas; and that dichotomy is not dispositive, either).
Societies, ultimately, must act to defend themselves. An individual who is an adherent to the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, must act contrary to that goal. Perhaps for "societies" we should substitute "nations."
Sorry to start this and run, but errands call. Enjoy.
You're going a bit fast for me. Indivuals can make moral decisions that affect them adversely; usually, they don't. And societies are never exactly societies at all, but accumulations of different groups and subgroups, each with differing identities and agendas.
But the difference between "enlightened self-interest" and a moral decision, is the extent to which it is directly contrary to my self-interest, but necessary for the group as a whole (or the moral rule agreed upon, depending on whether your definition of "ethics" is rooted in Aristotle, or in Aquinas; and that dichotomy is not dispositive, either).
Societies, ultimately, must act to defend themselves. An individual who is an adherent to the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, must act contrary to that goal. Perhaps for "societies" we should substitute "nations."
Sorry to start this and run, but errands call. Enjoy.
Well, trying to change society (one way or another) without looking toward being better individuals certainly leads to the sort of hypocrisy that produces, say, the Clinton impeachment.
I'd say this must be another case in which the idea of balance is paramount.
The ends just don't justify the means if the means create the kind of environment which exists today. Further, we have come to the point where the ends are simply an excuse to justify the mean means.
Only introspection can provide the proper tempering of policy. I think the right (speaking generally) has lost the will to introspection because it is just too scary for them.
Well, trying to change society (one way or another) without looking toward being better individuals certainly leads to the sort of hypocrisy that produces, say, the Clinton impeachment.
I'd say this must be another case in which the idea of balance is paramount.
The ends just don't justify the means if the means create the kind of environment which exists today. Further, we have come to the point where the ends are simply an excuse to justify the mean means.
Only introspection can provide the proper tempering of policy. I think the right (speaking generally) has lost the will to introspection because it is just too scary for them.
Robert! Alright - way to go. And way for Atrios to pick subs, too.
Well, the world is us. But we have very little to zero control over other people. If we change ourselves, society must change eventually. Which means like minded people have to come together and agree to change in order to change the society.
However, if the ultimate determining factor is protecting the constituency, some social changes will have to be imposed upon the society in order to accomplish the goal. The trick is getting enough people to agree that it the changes are necessary.
It's a start...
Robert! Alright - way to go. And way for Atrios to pick subs, too.
Well, the world is us. But we have very little to zero control over other people. If we change ourselves, society must change eventually. Which means like minded people have to come together and agree to change in order to change the society.
However, if the ultimate determining factor is protecting the constituency, some social changes will have to be imposed upon the society in order to accomplish the goal. The trick is getting enough people to agree that it the changes are necessary.
It's a start...
We act in the world, not just in a private universe. By considering our actions, and their potential effects, and choosing actions based on those effects, we indeed affect the world. Not very much, usually, it's true--but just because an action is small doesn't make it less right to do it. In other words, it's less of a dichotomy than it appears to be, and not really a chicken-egg question, either (with apologies to the author): I don't think we can take action to affect society without considering our own moral values and beliefs and considering how any given action or set of actions might affect others.
We act in the world, not just in a private universe. By considering our actions, and their potential effects, and choosing actions based on those effects, we indeed affect the world. Not very much, usually, it's true--but just because an action is small doesn't make it less right to do it. In other words, it's less of a dichotomy than it appears to be, and not really a chicken-egg question, either (with apologies to the author): I don't think we can take action to affect society without considering our own moral values and beliefs and considering how any given action or set of actions might affect others.
It's not a false dichotomy because you only have so much time. You have to choose. Otherwise, your energy is dissipated.
You have to start with yourself. When I was 18 and John Lennon was singing about "free your mind instead" I thought he was kidding.
Now that I'm 54, I'm seeing the wisdom.
It's not a false dichotomy because you only have so much time. You have to choose. Otherwise, your energy is dissipated.
You have to start with yourself. When I was 18 and John Lennon was singing about "free your mind instead" I thought he was kidding.
Now that I'm 54, I'm seeing the wisdom.
Zzzzzzz . . .
wake me up when Atrios comes back.
Zzzzzzz . . .
wake me up when Atrios comes back.
Bobbo,
Do we really need the Christian threat on these boards.
Dead white guys and Social Gospel?
And cookie cutter Assumptions that make me cringe.
Humans change, society changes.
And last I checked, society also decides who lives, and who dies.
Whether war, capital punishment, or whatever, society makes these decisions, to protect the citizens surely, based on individual consensus.
humans have changed the world,
the world has changed humans.
what is this? a 1907 discussion at the Yale Club?
Bobbo,
Do we really need the Christian threat on these boards.
Dead white guys and Social Gospel?
And cookie cutter Assumptions that make me cringe.
Humans change, society changes.
And last I checked, society also decides who lives, and who dies.
Whether war, capital punishment, or whatever, society makes these decisions, to protect the citizens surely, based on individual consensus.
humans have changed the world,
the world has changed humans.
what is this? a 1907 discussion at the Yale Club?
Which brings us to the political question: can we change the world? Or only ourselves?
Well, the effort to change the world (for the better, that is) was set back 50 years on Nov 2.
It is possible that mankind is on the threshold of a golden age; but, if so, it will be necessary first to slay the dragon that guards the door, and this dragon is religion. -Bertrand Russell
Which brings us to the political question: can we change the world? Or only ourselves?
Well, the effort to change the world (for the better, that is) was set back 50 years on Nov 2.
It is possible that mankind is on the threshold of a golden age; but, if so, it will be necessary first to slay the dragon that guards the door, and this dragon is religion. -Bertrand Russell
You cannot love others until you can love yourself.
You cannot love others until you can love yourself.
I recently picked up a copy of Doesteyevski's The Idiot. Central premise seems to be that the only place for a moral man in an immoral world is inside an insane asylum or sanitorium.
Comforting.
Guess it's time to trot out my favorite metaphysical joke: a man climbs to the peak of the Himalayas in search of the Most Enlightened One. He finds the great teacher meditating in a cave. "What can I do for you, my son?" the Enlightened One asks. "Oh, great teacher," the traveller pleads, "I have come a great distance to ask you this: make me one with everything." The Enlightened One reaches into his robe and pulls out a steaming hot dog smothered in onions, relish, and mustard on a perfectly grilled bun and hands it to the astonished traveller. "There you go - one with everything," he says. "That'll be three bucks." The traveller hands him a twenty, which the Enlightened One stashes in his robe. "What about my change?" the traveller asks. "Change," the Enlightened One intones, "comes from within."
I recently picked up a copy of Doesteyevski's The Idiot. Central premise seems to be that the only place for a moral man in an immoral world is inside an insane asylum or sanitorium.
Comforting.
Guess it's time to trot out my favorite metaphysical joke: a man climbs to the peak of the Himalayas in search of the Most Enlightened One. He finds the great teacher meditating in a cave. "What can I do for you, my son?" the Enlightened One asks. "Oh, great teacher," the traveller pleads, "I have come a great distance to ask you this: make me one with everything." The Enlightened One reaches into his robe and pulls out a steaming hot dog smothered in onions, relish, and mustard on a perfectly grilled bun and hands it to the astonished traveller. "There you go - one with everything," he says. "That'll be three bucks." The traveller hands him a twenty, which the Enlightened One stashes in his robe. "What about my change?" the traveller asks. "Change," the Enlightened One intones, "comes from within."
da trufe - watch yourself - being rude to Robert isn't going to get you anywhere.
You aren't that smart.
da trufe - watch yourself - being rude to Robert isn't going to get you anywhere.
You aren't that smart.
can an unjust society create just individuals? can just individuals come out of an unjust society? just sayin'.
can an unjust society create just individuals? can just individuals come out of an unjust society? just sayin'.
can an unjust society create just individuals?
Yes it can, Just like a very conservative society breaks to the left after time. A reaction.
can an unjust society create just individuals?
Yes it can, Just like a very conservative society breaks to the left after time. A reaction.
I am the eggman, they are the eggmen.
I am the walrus, goo goo g’joob.
I am the eggman, they are the eggmen.
I am the walrus, goo goo g’joob.
dieselcreek - I think the pendulum has already begun to swing back to the left.
For one thing, the apex always contains the momentum for the fall and the minute the height is reached is the minute the fall begins. Bush reached his height some time back, certainly on the 2d the rise was complete. We are in the process of going back the other way. If the change doesn't register yet for some people it is because it starts with some subtleness. It's still gathering momentum, but eventually it will be glaringly obvious.
dieselcreek - I think the pendulum has already begun to swing back to the left.
For one thing, the apex always contains the momentum for the fall and the minute the height is reached is the minute the fall begins. Bush reached his height some time back, certainly on the 2d the rise was complete. We are in the process of going back the other way. If the change doesn't register yet for some people it is because it starts with some subtleness. It's still gathering momentum, but eventually it will be glaringly obvious.
"Which brings us to the political question: can we change the world? Or only ourselves? And which one do we start with?"
if each manages their own, the whole is transformed.
if each gave up organized religion in favor of following the golden rule, botherhood would break out across humanity.
if there were no soldiers there could be no war.
if each of the 49 million sane American voters convinces just one of the 51 million Bush voters that they were stupid and wrong, repukelicans would be returned to rock from under which they crawled.
-
"Which brings us to the political question: can we change the world? Or only ourselves? And which one do we start with?"
if each manages their own, the whole is transformed.
if each gave up organized religion in favor of following the golden rule, botherhood would break out across humanity.
if there were no soldiers there could be no war.
if each of the 49 million sane American voters convinces just one of the 51 million Bush voters that they were stupid and wrong, repukelicans would be returned to rock from under which they crawled.
-
I agree Tena. I see it locally. We are ridin' the wave.
I agree Tena. I see it locally. We are ridin' the wave.
"botherhood" = "brotherhood"...but I know you knew that.
"botherhood" = "brotherhood"...but I know you knew that.
The Nazis also had theoretcians who provided philosophical justifications for what they did. The stalinists did too. This is the function of people like Niebuhr in the west. Why can't we ever see through this when it's coming from our side?
The Nazis also had theoretcians who provided philosophical justifications for what they did. The stalinists did too. This is the function of people like Niebuhr in the west. Why can't we ever see through this when it's coming from our side?
Well, the effort to change the world (for the better, that is) was set back 50 years on Nov 2.
Paul:
Here is some hope, my wife thinks the election was the last hurrah, the dying breath of the reactionaries.
...and just because of the set backs here doesn't mean change everywhere has stopped. There is the possibility that the US is not the light on the hill for the rest of the world.
Well, the effort to change the world (for the better, that is) was set back 50 years on Nov 2.
Paul:
Here is some hope, my wife thinks the election was the last hurrah, the dying breath of the reactionaries.
...and just because of the set backs here doesn't mean change everywhere has stopped. There is the possibility that the US is not the light on the hill for the rest of the world.
Interesting question which I've pondered myself, and have argued with a few fundies.
The fundamentalists want the government to patrol personal morality, which of course, government is ill-suited to do. Law can proscribe behavoir to a certain degree, but it cannot change men's "hearts".
More to the point, personal morality, or in fundie speak "family values" do little to help the individual in a larger atmosphere of social immorality. A family can teach its children the concepts of fair play and other life lessons which may in some ways enrich the life of the individual. But whatever protection "family values" may offer stops at the door of the home, in that no matter how good the values of the individual or individual family may be, they cannot protect the individual from unfair labor practices, a law system rigged against the little guy, or the rapaciousness of corporations. It's all fine and good for mom and dad to teach their kids good values, but does the lesson really stick when the kiddos see dad's entire life savings stolen by Ken Lay, who then continues to walk around free and is not even required to return the money he's stolen? Honesty may be the best policy, but can the kids really be expected to internalize its value when the leadership of the country tells lie after lie, costing some people their lives and ruining the lives of many others, and is rewarded for doing so?
So yes, it is a "chicken and egg" question, but it seems pretty clear to me in this case that the "egg" or individual cannot flourish and thrive absent the nurture and protection of the "chicken" or larger society.
Ironically, it's the larger social values or morals where government really can have an impact - and these are the values that have most been eroded by conservative attack.
Interesting question which I've pondered myself, and have argued with a few fundies.
The fundamentalists want the government to patrol personal morality, which of course, government is ill-suited to do. Law can proscribe behavoir to a certain degree, but it cannot change men's "hearts".
More to the point, personal morality, or in fundie speak "family values" do little to help the individual in a larger atmosphere of social immorality. A family can teach its children the concepts of fair play and other life lessons which may in some ways enrich the life of the individual. But whatever protection "family values" may offer stops at the door of the home, in that no matter how good the values of the individual or individual family may be, they cannot protect the individual from unfair labor practices, a law system rigged against the little guy, or the rapaciousness of corporations. It's all fine and good for mom and dad to teach their kids good values, but does the lesson really stick when the kiddos see dad's entire life savings stolen by Ken Lay, who then continues to walk around free and is not even required to return the money he's stolen? Honesty may be the best policy, but can the kids really be expected to internalize its value when the leadership of the country tells lie after lie, costing some people their lives and ruining the lives of many others, and is rewarded for doing so?
So yes, it is a "chicken and egg" question, but it seems pretty clear to me in this case that the "egg" or individual cannot flourish and thrive absent the nurture and protection of the "chicken" or larger society.
Ironically, it's the larger social values or morals where government really can have an impact - and these are the values that have most been eroded by conservative attack.
Social systems are structurated entities that are composed of rules and resources for actions and the systems that result from individual performances based on those rules and resources. The macro and the micro are inseperable in this sense. Once individuals stop following the rules, or once resources are no longer accepted/desired, the social system itself changes.
EG., Old-school manners. My father opened my mother's car door every single time they got into the car, until he was too ill to do so. He stood up when a woman entered a room and stood up when ever women were standing around him. Most men don't do this anymore. Why? Because in small steps, little by little, either people stopped following the rules, or technology made the rule less important to follow (for example, the electronic car door lock). So now we are at a point where when I ask my male students how many of them open their date's door, only about 3 out of 20 raise their hands. And NONE of them stand when a woman enters a room. It is just no longer a rule that people exepect men to follow any more. These "manners" are also no longer a resources males draw upon in presenting a self that is well mannered and courtly.
So, changing the world is dependent upon changing individual actions and changes in those actions, when they reach critical mass, change the world.
Social systems are structurated entities that are composed of rules and resources for actions and the systems that result from individual performances based on those rules and resources. The macro and the micro are inseperable in this sense. Once individuals stop following the rules, or once resources are no longer accepted/desired, the social system itself changes.
EG., Old-school manners. My father opened my mother's car door every single time they got into the car, until he was too ill to do so. He stood up when a woman entered a room and stood up when ever women were standing around him. Most men don't do this anymore. Why? Because in small steps, little by little, either people stopped following the rules, or technology made the rule less important to follow (for example, the electronic car door lock). So now we are at a point where when I ask my male students how many of them open their date's door, only about 3 out of 20 raise their hands. And NONE of them stand when a woman enters a room. It is just no longer a rule that people exepect men to follow any more. These "manners" are also no longer a resources males draw upon in presenting a self that is well mannered and courtly.
So, changing the world is dependent upon changing individual actions and changes in those actions, when they reach critical mass, change the world.
"small is beautiful"
"universal begins local"
.
"small is beautiful"
"universal begins local"
.
dieselcreek - Glad it's not just me. Well, and Mr. Tena, who began pointing it out to me a short while ago.
dieselcreek - Glad it's not just me. Well, and Mr. Tena, who began pointing it out to me a short while ago.
"Which brings us to the political question: can we change the world? Or only ourselves? And which one do we start with?"
Ourselves. Definitely.
"Which brings us to the political question: can we change the world? Or only ourselves? And which one do we start with?"
Ourselves. Definitely.
can somebody please fisk Brooks' god-forsaken article in NYT today, please?
can somebody please fisk Brooks' god-forsaken article in NYT today, please?
What Jennifer said. Amen.
What Jennifer said. Amen.
If you are going to build an empire you need quite a few Niebuhrs around so that people get the idea that we ought to be concerned with ourselves and not with what is going on in our name throughout the world. You don't build empire by being nice to people, so you have to get the citizens of the empire to look the other way.
If you are going to build an empire you need quite a few Niebuhrs around so that people get the idea that we ought to be concerned with ourselves and not with what is going on in our name throughout the world. You don't build empire by being nice to people, so you have to get the citizens of the empire to look the other way.
One of the indicators, nationally, that the con movement is waning is the Olin Foundation disbanding in 2005.
John Olin, one of the originators of the neo-con movement in the 1970's, started the foundation with the idea that when all his closest ideologues died or left the organization, it would cease to properly represent the foundation and would be disbanded. So, the charter has a 2005 expiration date.
The Olin Foundation is a HUGE money source for all these echo-chamber think tanks (along with Coors, Bradley, Koch, Scaife).
I'm sure the cons will work out new money sources, being the big business party. But it still throws a stick in the spokes.
One of the indicators, nationally, that the con movement is waning is the Olin Foundation disbanding in 2005.
John Olin, one of the originators of the neo-con movement in the 1970's, started the foundation with the idea that when all his closest ideologues died or left the organization, it would cease to properly represent the foundation and would be disbanded. So, the charter has a 2005 expiration date.
The Olin Foundation is a HUGE money source for all these echo-chamber think tanks (along with Coors, Bradley, Koch, Scaife).
I'm sure the cons will work out new money sources, being the big business party. But it still throws a stick in the spokes.
robert m. jeffers,
can we change the world? Or only ourselves? And which one do we start with?
i'd like to propose it is both or neither - we can't choose just one.
for most of us, so much of who we are depends on our community. even to the point of torture and almost unbelievable cruelty. i'm thinking here of abu ghraib, the standford prison experiment and stanley milgram's experiments.
here's the press release:
http://tinyurl.com/5azf6
for the article in the nov 26, issues of science (www.sciencemag.org subscription required):
Why Ordinary People Torture Enemy Prisoners
Susan T. Fiske, Lasana T. Harris, Amy J. C. Cuddy
Accounts of prisoner abuse and other institutional violence often blame a few isolated individuals, but social psychology emphasizes social contexts, which can make almost anyone oppress, conform, and obey in abetting destructive social behavior. In this Policy Forum, meta-analyses demonstrate the quantitative reliability and import of social contexts. Moreover, recent data show that initial reactions to low-status, oppositional outgroups may involve disgust and contempt, consistent with abuse. Together, social pressures and social prejudices help explain the recent abuse scandals.
robert m. jeffers,
can we change the world? Or only ourselves? And which one do we start with?
i'd like to propose it is both or neither - we can't choose just one.
for most of us, so much of who we are depends on our community. even to the point of torture and almost unbelievable cruelty. i'm thinking here of abu ghraib, the standford prison experiment and stanley milgram's experiments.
here's the press release:
http://tinyurl.com/5azf6
for the article in the nov 26, issues of science (www.sciencemag.org subscription required):
Why Ordinary People Torture Enemy Prisoners
Susan T. Fiske, Lasana T. Harris, Amy J. C. Cuddy
Accounts of prisoner abuse and other institutional violence often blame a few isolated individuals, but social psychology emphasizes social contexts, which can make almost anyone oppress, conform, and obey in abetting destructive social behavior. In this Policy Forum, meta-analyses demonstrate the quantitative reliability and import of social contexts. Moreover, recent data show that initial reactions to low-status, oppositional outgroups may involve disgust and contempt, consistent with abuse. Together, social pressures and social prejudices help explain the recent abuse scandals.
Of Topic:
"Bush Calls on Americans to Volunteer, Give"
**click homepage for link**
President Bush issued a holiday-season call on Americans to volunteer and give to charity — "to share our blessings with the least among us." He singled out for special praise those who have given time and energy to U.S. troops stationed around the world.
"The greatest challenges of our time have come to the men and women who protect our nation," Bush said in his weekly radio address Saturday.
"Like generations before them, today's armed forces have liberated captive peoples and shown compassion for the suffering and delivered hope to the oppressed," Bush said. "In the past year, they have fought the terrorists abroad so that we do not have to face those enemies here at home."
Thus to Bush...
Giving to charity = Military enlistment
Volunteer work = Military enlistment
My family consists mainly of southern baptists who give over 10-15% of their annual income to their church. I've met their pastor and he's a really nice guy, liberal by the standards of mosts preachers but very animal rights/environment/workers rights, etc.
For two of my aunts 15% of their annual income ammounts to about 10K each, and both of them have pretty good salaries. In comparison i've seen numerous top named corporations and the wealthy give only 10-50K, which would suppose that they only bring in about 300K or so. We know these corporations/people make millions, sometimes billions. For them to give to charity any ammount worth bragging about they would have to give at least 100-500K+. I know there are some groups that do this, but I also know there are more corporations and wealthy persons who give only the barest minimum and then as if they have made a sacrifice worthy of our respect. Let's see the wealthy and the corporations give 10-15% for a change.
MYOB'
.
Of Topic:
"Bush Calls on Americans to Volunteer, Give"
**click homepage for link**
President Bush issued a holiday-season call on Americans to volunteer and give to charity — "to share our blessings with the least among us." He singled out for special praise those who have given time and energy to U.S. troops stationed around the world.
"The greatest challenges of our time have come to the men and women who protect our nation," Bush said in his weekly radio address Saturday.
"Like generations before them, today's armed forces have liberated captive peoples and shown compassion for the suffering and delivered hope to the oppressed," Bush said. "In the past year, they have fought the terrorists abroad so that we do not have to face those enemies here at home."
Thus to Bush...
Giving to charity = Military enlistment
Volunteer work = Military enlistment
My family consists mainly of southern baptists who give over 10-15% of their annual income to their church. I've met their pastor and he's a really nice guy, liberal by the standards of mosts preachers but very animal rights/environment/workers rights, etc.
For two of my aunts 15% of their annual income ammounts to about 10K each, and both of them have pretty good salaries. In comparison i've seen numerous top named corporations and the wealthy give only 10-50K, which would suppose that they only bring in about 300K or so. We know these corporations/people make millions, sometimes billions. For them to give to charity any ammount worth bragging about they would have to give at least 100-500K+. I know there are some groups that do this, but I also know there are more corporations and wealthy persons who give only the barest minimum and then as if they have made a sacrifice worthy of our respect. Let's see the wealthy and the corporations give 10-15% for a change.
MYOB'
.
"Here is some hope, my wife thinks the election was the last hurrah, the dying breath of the reactionaries.
this hope-think is dangerous in that it permits many left-leaning to ignore the reality: Ameraica of our dreams does NOT currently exist, American IS the 51% that voted for the Bushliar. If you want it back, it is better that the 49% be angry and motivated than calmed into inaction by wishful thinking of which there is NO supporting evidence.
"...and just because of the set backs here doesn't mean change everywhere has stopped. There is the possibility that the US is not the light on the hill for the rest of the world."
Absolutely, the US day in the sun has passed...its up to other so-called civilized societies (Canada, Europe, Japan) to step-up and lead humanity forward.
.
"Here is some hope, my wife thinks the election was the last hurrah, the dying breath of the reactionaries.
this hope-think is dangerous in that it permits many left-leaning to ignore the reality: Ameraica of our dreams does NOT currently exist, American IS the 51% that voted for the Bushliar. If you want it back, it is better that the 49% be angry and motivated than calmed into inaction by wishful thinking of which there is NO supporting evidence.
"...and just because of the set backs here doesn't mean change everywhere has stopped. There is the possibility that the US is not the light on the hill for the rest of the world."
Absolutely, the US day in the sun has passed...its up to other so-called civilized societies (Canada, Europe, Japan) to step-up and lead humanity forward.
.
Moral Man and Immoral Society? Is that a reference to PK Dick's Our Friends from Frolix 8?
As for the sexism in the title: oh, please. Let's not be presentist, eh?
Moral Man and Immoral Society? Is that a reference to PK Dick's Our Friends from Frolix 8?
As for the sexism in the title: oh, please. Let's not be presentist, eh?
Some people would say that the best way to change the world is through changing ourseleves.
In the end, the only person I have any control over is myself . . . and I often think that my control over myself is pretty limited too.
On the other hand, individuals are thinking, acting, and responsible individuals who live in society. To the extent, therefore, that they are engaged in that society as conscientious members, they have the potential to act in ways that are ethical and even transformative of the larger society as a whole (e.g., Gandhi or King.) I think that this is how true political change occurs.
Nonetheless, I can't control how the larger society will respond to what I believe are conscientious or even enlightend actions or statements on my part. History is replete with examples of societies that had members that spoke out to the larger society with their wisdom, only to be greeted with resistance and/or hostility from the larger society (e.g., Socrates and classical Athens, the prophets of ancient Israel, Jesus, Dr. King, Ceasar Chavez, etc.)
Along these lines, I don't think it is a mere coincidence that two of the greatest political transformers of the past century (Gandhi and King), were not only met with resistance, but were ultimately assassinated.
In the end, I think real positive political change really happens OUTSIDE of the official political structures. It always has to come from "the people" in that the demand for change has to achieve a certain critical mass. Once it does so, the larger official power structures have to somehow deal with them, either through persecution, squelching of dissent, coopting, or finally acquiescing and agreeing with those who demand change.
And because I believe real change exists outside of the official political structures (in our country, such "official structures" are the government and our election systems), political action outside of these structures is necessary (i.e., organized boycotts, mass civil disobedience, strikes, etc.) before the people who have the power to make changes decide to listen.
Those individuals who feel they have the power and the position and the money in society are usually resistant to change. Because they benefit from the status quo, they are the last people to want to see it shaken up. Thus, they will always fight change (e.g., the Democratic establishment and the way they have consistently acted to quell the populist insurgency represented by the Dean movement.)
The birth of Athenian participatory democracy occurred because an aristocrat by the name of Cliesthenes realized that there was so much unrest and dissatisfaction in the common people with the way they were being treated by the aristocrats, that the best way to deal with this unrest and preserve the state was by making accomodations to the common people. Hence, he instituted the Athenian political system that gave every free man the same political status and say i
Some people would say that the best way to change the world is through changing ourseleves.
In the end, the only person I have any control over is myself . . . and I often think that my control over myself is pretty limited too.
On the other hand, individuals are thinking, acting, and responsible individuals who live in society. To the extent, therefore, that they are engaged in that society as conscientious members, they have the potential to act in ways that are ethical and even transformative of the larger society as a whole (e.g., Gandhi or King.) I think that this is how true political change occurs.
Nonetheless, I can't control how the larger society will respond to what I believe are conscientious or even enlightend actions or statements on my part. History is replete with examples of societies that had members that spoke out to the larger society with their wisdom, only to be greeted with resistance and/or hostility from the larger society (e.g., Socrates and classical Athens, the prophets of ancient Israel, Jesus, Dr. King, Ceasar Chavez, etc.)
Along these lines, I don't think it is a mere coincidence that two of the greatest political transformers of the past century (Gandhi and King), were not only met with resistance, but were ultimately assassinated.
In the end, I think real positive political change really happens OUTSIDE of the official political structures. It always has to come from "the people" in that the demand for change has to achieve a certain critical mass. Once it does so, the larger official power structures have to somehow deal with them, either through persecution, squelching of dissent, coopting, or finally acquiescing and agreeing with those who demand change.
And because I believe real change exists outside of the official political structures (in our country, such "official structures" are the government and our election systems), political action outside of these structures is necessary (i.e., organized boycotts, mass civil disobedience, strikes, etc.) before the people who have the power to make changes decide to listen.
Those individuals who feel they have the power and the position and the money in society are usually resistant to change. Because they benefit from the status quo, they are the last people to want to see it shaken up. Thus, they will always fight change (e.g., the Democratic establishment and the way they have consistently acted to quell the populist insurgency represented by the Dean movement.)
The birth of Athenian participatory democracy occurred because an aristocrat by the name of Cliesthenes realized that there was so much unrest and dissatisfaction in the common people with the way they were being treated by the aristocrats, that the best way to deal with this unrest and preserve the state was by making accomodations to the common people. Hence, he instituted the Athenian political system that gave every free man the same political status and say i
Bush: "The more Moslems we kill over there, the safer we are here."
Bush: "The more Moslems we kill over there, the safer we are here."
Our forebearers gave us the tools and the inspiration to take on any challenge to the principles we hold aloft, and now is the time for us to use those tools and their inspiration to win in this time of darkness.
KorkSkrew
what a load of steaming crap on the lawn. This is the worst post I have ever read. Our foreberers did not intend us to be sniviling wimps like the Democrats offer, they expected us to kick the crap out of anyone that messes with us.
I hope you go to Canada because your comments reek of weakness.
Consider this:
We are individuals only on the inside.
Once we use our senses -- listen, see, touch, smell, taste -- we are no longer individuals.
We are cells in a single organism, humankind.
Humankind exists as part of a greater organism, Earth, which is part of the Solar System, and so on, and so forth.
What divides us is on the inside.
God is all there is; there is nothing that is not God.
We try to keep separate from God on the inside, but then we listen, see, touch, smell, taste.
So we are, except for Timothy Leary, on the inside, looking out.
God bless us all.
Our forebearers gave us the tools and the inspiration to take on any challenge to the principles we hold aloft, and now is the time for us to use those tools and their inspiration to win in this time of darkness.
KorkSkrew
what a load of steaming crap on the lawn. This is the worst post I have ever read. Our foreberers did not intend us to be sniviling wimps like the Democrats offer, they expected us to kick the crap out of anyone that messes with us.
I hope you go to Canada because your comments reek of weakness.
Consider this:
We are individuals only on the inside.
Once we use our senses -- listen, see, touch, smell, taste -- we are no longer individuals.
We are cells in a single organism, humankind.
Humankind exists as part of a greater organism, Earth, which is part of the Solar System, and so on, and so forth.
What divides us is on the inside.
God is all there is; there is nothing that is not God.
We try to keep separate from God on the inside, but then we listen, see, touch, smell, taste.
So we are, except for Timothy Leary, on the inside, looking out.
God bless us all.
For the opposite point of view from Niebuhr, read Jefferson.
For the opposite point of view from Niebuhr, read Jefferson.
pimp wrote:
Here is some hope, my wife thinks the election was the last hurrah, the dying breath of the reactionaries.
Does she handle the money in the house? Cuz I got a bridge I need to sell, cheap...
Anyone who believes the fascists will ever again relinquish their hold on government hasn't been paying attention. The ease with which the last three elections('00, '02, '04) have been rigged, and the complacency with which the majority of USers has accepted these transparent facts suggests to me that, absent a truly world-wide economic crisis which puts a couple hundred million USers in bread lines, there will be no change in the trajectory of the last 40 years, in which the Corporate Oligarchy has worked tirelessly to reduce to ruins every and any institution oof public sovereignty which can balk or stymie their march to total social, cultural, and econnomic domination...
pimp wrote:
Here is some hope, my wife thinks the election was the last hurrah, the dying breath of the reactionaries.
Does she handle the money in the house? Cuz I got a bridge I need to sell, cheap...
Anyone who believes the fascists will ever again relinquish their hold on government hasn't been paying attention. The ease with which the last three elections('00, '02, '04) have been rigged, and the complacency with which the majority of USers has accepted these transparent facts suggests to me that, absent a truly world-wide economic crisis which puts a couple hundred million USers in bread lines, there will be no change in the trajectory of the last 40 years, in which the Corporate Oligarchy has worked tirelessly to reduce to ruins every and any institution oof public sovereignty which can balk or stymie their march to total social, cultural, and econnomic domination...
Which seems to make Reinhold the ultimate cynic, pessimist or hypocrite? Seriously, to fill his manuscripts with lofty prose, soaring platitudes, and quaint aphorisms only to abandon in it because "...society cannot violate the fundamental tenet: protect the constituency..." suggests a pathological level of cognitive dissonance to the point of manifest self-hatred. I work with lots of folks in the military who rationalize rule-breaking in the mis-treatment of less fortunate individuals as some bizarre, inverted form of benign socialism where the collective "benefits" from the elimination or destruction of the weak, the different. Sounds like the best of feudalism, corporatism, and the dog-eat-dog world of the NFL to me. Ultimately, Reinhold's sell-out lends its logic to those who would curb the Constitution because the document does not represent a suicide pact among the citizens. Cynicism indeed.
Which seems to make Reinhold the ultimate cynic, pessimist or hypocrite? Seriously, to fill his manuscripts with lofty prose, soaring platitudes, and quaint aphorisms only to abandon in it because "...society cannot violate the fundamental tenet: protect the constituency..." suggests a pathological level of cognitive dissonance to the point of manifest self-hatred. I work with lots of folks in the military who rationalize rule-breaking in the mis-treatment of less fortunate individuals as some bizarre, inverted form of benign socialism where the collective "benefits" from the elimination or destruction of the weak, the different. Sounds like the best of feudalism, corporatism, and the dog-eat-dog world of the NFL to me. Ultimately, Reinhold's sell-out lends its logic to those who would curb the Constitution because the document does not represent a suicide pact among the citizens. Cynicism indeed.
Sorry T,
I just think that religion is, well as Freud said, an illusion.
And as our founding fathers thought, a danger to the republic.
I realize Dems feel compelled to get some religion, but it's like debating on a doilie. Teh underlying tenets of the discussion are all bullsheet.
Gospels, God, why it just indicates that there is little hope, if the smartest people like Judge Jeffers
are stuck in Jesusland, we're screwed!
Sorry T,
I just think that religion is, well as Freud said, an illusion.
And as our founding fathers thought, a danger to the republic.
I realize Dems feel compelled to get some religion, but it's like debating on a doilie. Teh underlying tenets of the discussion are all bullsheet.
Gospels, God, why it just indicates that there is little hope, if the smartest people like Judge Jeffers
are stuck in Jesusland, we're screwed!
Do both, within reason!
Do both, within reason!
As I think about this on-going political battle, I try to think globally. For example, it would seem as if this Republican party has become Global Fascists. Jeez, that sounds harsh though. The common midwesterner would react very poorly to such words (crazy hippies!)
So, what could we call these obviously warped Republicans?
How about Corporatist?
Corporatist has become the modern American word for fascist...
How about Economic Royalists?
An old FDR frame...
Framing the cons as the party of wealth and sloth is going to be very important. We should forget about labeling ANYONE who is not in power. That plays to the cons hand.
We frame them personally! Attack straight on. Not this namby-pamby, beating around the bush, snide remarks. Right up the gut...
This is us (most of America) against them (elites, trust-fund babies, corporatists, wealth hoarders)
If we get called class-warfare antagonizers? GREAT! that's what we want, the issue frames itself and creates a divide just by them acknowledging the issue!
This is easy once we get the hang of it.
As I think about this on-going political battle, I try to think globally. For example, it would seem as if this Republican party has become Global Fascists. Jeez, that sounds harsh though. The common midwesterner would react very poorly to such words (crazy hippies!)
So, what could we call these obviously warped Republicans?
How about Corporatist?
Corporatist has become the modern American word for fascist...
How about Economic Royalists?
An old FDR frame...
Framing the cons as the party of wealth and sloth is going to be very important. We should forget about labeling ANYONE who is not in power. That plays to the cons hand.
We frame them personally! Attack straight on. Not this namby-pamby, beating around the bush, snide remarks. Right up the gut...
This is us (most of America) against them (elites, trust-fund babies, corporatists, wealth hoarders)
If we get called class-warfare antagonizers? GREAT! that's what we want, the issue frames itself and creates a divide just by them acknowledging the issue!
This is easy once we get the hang of it.
gak - that America is the 51% who voted for Bush, if it is true that that many did vote for him, is still incomplete. That relegates almost half of us - 49% - to meaninglessness.
To point to just about half of the country as being the country is dangerous, to my mind. Just as dangerous as your suggestion that we are lulling ourselves into complacency. In the first place, I don't think that's so. In the second place, all on the right who believe that it is so are making the same error you accuse the left of making.
gak - that America is the 51% who voted for Bush, if it is true that that many did vote for him, is still incomplete. That relegates almost half of us - 49% - to meaninglessness.
To point to just about half of the country as being the country is dangerous, to my mind. Just as dangerous as your suggestion that we are lulling ourselves into complacency. In the first place, I don't think that's so. In the second place, all on the right who believe that it is so are making the same error you accuse the left of making.
So, what could we call these obviously warped Republicans?
How about Corporatist?
Corporatist has become the modern American word for fascist...
I have news for you, Mussolini coined the term Corpratist, and it doesn't apply to the GOP. As you know, the party of big business is the Democrats, the GOP is the party of the common man.
i've been trying to change my socks more regularly. it's really been working out too.
So, what could we call these obviously warped Republicans?
How about Corporatist?
Corporatist has become the modern American word for fascist...
I have news for you, Mussolini coined the term Corpratist, and it doesn't apply to the GOP. As you know, the party of big business is the Democrats, the GOP is the party of the common man.
i've been trying to change my socks more regularly. it's really been working out too.
But the 1796 Treaty of Tripoli initiated by George Washington and
signed into law by John Adams proclaims: The Government of the
United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian
Religion.
When Attorney General John Ashcroft repeatedly invokes religion, the
Founders must be picketing in their graves. They were a mix of
freethinkers, atheists, Christians, agnostics, Freemasons and Deists (professing
belief in powers scientifically evinced in the natural universe). They
surely were imperfect. Some were slaveholders.
THOMAS PAINE
Paine's writings heavily influenced the other Founders. A freethinker
who opposed all organized religion, he reserved particular vituperation
for Christianity. My country is the world and my religion is to do
good” (The Rights of Man, 1791).
I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the
Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the
Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own
church” (The Age of Reason, 1794).
Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no
more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant
to reason, and more contradictory in itself than this thing called
Christianity (Ibid.).
But the 1796 Treaty of Tripoli initiated by George Washington and
signed into law by John Adams proclaims: The Government of the
United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian
Religion.
When Attorney General John Ashcroft repeatedly invokes religion, the
Founders must be picketing in their graves. They were a mix of
freethinkers, atheists, Christians, agnostics, Freemasons and Deists (professing
belief in powers scientifically evinced in the natural universe). They
surely were imperfect. Some were slaveholders.
THOMAS PAINE
Paine's writings heavily influenced the other Founders. A freethinker
who opposed all organized religion, he reserved particular vituperation
for Christianity. My country is the world and my religion is to do
good” (The Rights of Man, 1791).
I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the
Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the
Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own
church” (The Age of Reason, 1794).
Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no
more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant
to reason, and more contradictory in itself than this thing called
Christianity (Ibid.).
To follow up on my last post, this is how I think the left can ultimately win the battle for hearts and minds:
We must make our own "values" arguments centered on the notion of social values rather than on what any individuals may choose to do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. The former is an appeal to the angels of our better natures while the latter is an appeal to the basest of our instincts: to persecute that which is "different" than ourselves. We need to clearly spell out that individual values offer little protection in an atmosphere devoid of societal values.
We need to go further and link to our arguments for social morality the notion that one cannot be a "patriot" while at the same time hating, demonizing, or persecuting one's fellow citizens on the basis of those differences. Patriotism is not fealty to a piece of real estate; it is the love of and pride in the nation. And a nation is comprised of individual citizens. One cannot claim to "love" the nation while hating the peoples that make it up.
Insofar as religion and the perversion of its message have been used to get us where we are today, we must go further yet and articulate that the vast majority of Christ's teachings concerned social justice rather than personal morality (except in those cases where the latter impacts or determines the former).
This is the high ground, and we own it. Our case can be clearly articulated: government is formed for the purpose of, and has the power to affect, the welfare of the collective. Christ taught that outside of each of us tending to our own moral well-being, our primary duty is to tend to the welfare of the collective via social justice. Government has no more power than any of us have individually to stop our neighbor from "sinning," but it can ensure that we do not institutionalize inequity or give a legislative stamp of approval to bigotry, neither of which would be sanctioned by Christ.
This is the road out of the wilderness. Let us hope that our leaders will heed it and articulate it.
To follow up on my last post, this is how I think the left can ultimately win the battle for hearts and minds:
We must make our own "values" arguments centered on the notion of social values rather than on what any individuals may choose to do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. The former is an appeal to the angels of our better natures while the latter is an appeal to the basest of our instincts: to persecute that which is "different" than ourselves. We need to clearly spell out that individual values offer little protection in an atmosphere devoid of societal values.
We need to go further and link to our arguments for social morality the notion that one cannot be a "patriot" while at the same time hating, demonizing, or persecuting one's fellow citizens on the basis of those differences. Patriotism is not fealty to a piece of real estate; it is the love of and pride in the nation. And a nation is comprised of individual citizens. One cannot claim to "love" the nation while hating the peoples that make it up.
Insofar as religion and the perversion of its message have been used to get us where we are today, we must go further yet and articulate that the vast majority of Christ's teachings concerned social justice rather than personal morality (except in those cases where the latter impacts or determines the former).
This is the high ground, and we own it. Our case can be clearly articulated: government is formed for the purpose of, and has the power to affect, the welfare of the collective. Christ taught that outside of each of us tending to our own moral well-being, our primary duty is to tend to the welfare of the collective via social justice. Government has no more power than any of us have individually to stop our neighbor from "sinning," but it can ensure that we do not institutionalize inequity or give a legislative stamp of approval to bigotry, neither of which would be sanctioned by Christ.
This is the road out of the wilderness. Let us hope that our leaders will heed it and articulate it.
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN
Raised a Calvinist, Franklin rebelled — and spread that rebellion,
affecting Adams and Jefferson. His friend, Dr. Priestley, wrote in his
own Autobiography: “It is much to be lamented that a man of Franklin
’s general good character and great influence should have been an
unbeliever in Christianity, and also have done as much as he did to make
others unbelievers.”
A scientist, Franklin rejected churches, rituals, and all
“supernatural superstitions.”
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN
Raised a Calvinist, Franklin rebelled — and spread that rebellion,
affecting Adams and Jefferson. His friend, Dr. Priestley, wrote in his
own Autobiography: “It is much to be lamented that a man of Franklin
’s general good character and great influence should have been an
unbeliever in Christianity, and also have done as much as he did to make
others unbelievers.”
A scientist, Franklin rejected churches, rituals, and all
“supernatural superstitions.”
GEORGE WASHINGTON
The false image of Washington as a devout Christian was fabricated by
Mason Locke Weems, a clergyman who also invented the cherry-tree fable
and in 1800 published his Life of George Washington. Washington, a Deist
and a Freemason, never once mentioned the name of Jesus Christ in any
of his thousands of letters, and pointedly referred to divinity as
It.
Whenever he (rarely) attended church, Washington always deliberately
left before communion, demonstrating disbelief in Christianitys
central ceremony.
GEORGE WASHINGTON
The false image of Washington as a devout Christian was fabricated by
Mason Locke Weems, a clergyman who also invented the cherry-tree fable
and in 1800 published his Life of George Washington. Washington, a Deist
and a Freemason, never once mentioned the name of Jesus Christ in any
of his thousands of letters, and pointedly referred to divinity as
It.
Whenever he (rarely) attended church, Washington always deliberately
left before communion, demonstrating disbelief in Christianitys
central ceremony.
JOHN ADAMS
Adams, a Unitarian inspired by the Enlightenment, fiercely opposed
doctrines of supernaturalism or damnation, writing to Jefferson: “I
almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the
abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved — the
Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!â€
JOHN ADAMS
Adams, a Unitarian inspired by the Enlightenment, fiercely opposed
doctrines of supernaturalism or damnation, writing to Jefferson: “I
almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the
abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved — the
Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!â€
A house divided against itself cannot stand. We must change ourselves to the point where we accept the necessity of collective action.
A house divided against itself cannot stand. We must change ourselves to the point where we accept the necessity of collective action.
Individuals (leaders) see opportunities for change in prevailing conditions. They seek colleagues. They gain followers. Initial factors include widespread dissatisfaction, avenues for communication,emerging consensus on direction and values.
A good read: How the Scots Invented the Modern World, by Arthur Herman.
Individuals (leaders) see opportunities for change in prevailing conditions. They seek colleagues. They gain followers. Initial factors include widespread dissatisfaction, avenues for communication,emerging consensus on direction and values.
A good read: How the Scots Invented the Modern World, by Arthur Herman.
t
’s a commonly stated error that U.S. law, based on English common
law, is thus grounded in Judeo-Christian tradition.
Yet Jefferson (writing to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814 ) noted
that common law “is that system of law which was introduced by the
Saxons on their settlement in England …about the middle of the fifth
century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century.
…We may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and
writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the
common law.”
Jefferson professed disbelief in the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus
Christ, while respecting moral teachings by whomever might have been a
historical Jesus. He cut up a Bible, assembling his own version: “The
whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and
doubtful,
” he wrote Adams (January 24, 1814), “evidence that parts have
proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the
fabric of very inferior minds.”
Scorning miracles, saints, salvation, damnation, and angelic presences,
Jefferson embraced reason, materialism, and science. He challenged
Patrick Henry, who wanted a Christian theocracy: “[A]n amendment was
proposed by inserting â€Jesus Christ,’ so that [the preamble] should
read â€A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our
religion
’; the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof
that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the
Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and
Infidel of every denomination
” (from Jefferson’s Autobiography,
referring to the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom).
The theme is consistent throughout Jefferson ’s prolific
correspondence: “Question with boldness even the existence of a God” (letter to
Peter Carr, August 10, 1787).
“[The clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will
be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly:
for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every
form of tyranny over the mind of man” (letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush,
September 23, 1800).
“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole
American people which
…thus[built] a wall of separation between church and
state
” (letter to the Danbury [ Connecticut ] Baptist Association,
January 1, 1802).
“History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people
maintaining a free civil government” (letter to Alexander von
Humboldt, December 6, 1813).
“In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to
liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in
return for protection to his own” (letter to Horatio G. Spafford,
March 17, 1814).
“[W]hence arises the morality of the Atheist? …Their virtue, then,
must have had som
t
’s a commonly stated error that U.S. law, based on English common
law, is thus grounded in Judeo-Christian tradition.
Yet Jefferson (writing to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814 ) noted
that common law “is that system of law which was introduced by the
Saxons on their settlement in England …about the middle of the fifth
century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century.
…We may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and
writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the
common law.”
Jefferson professed disbelief in the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus
Christ, while respecting moral teachings by whomever might have been a
historical Jesus. He cut up a Bible, assembling his own version: “The
whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and
doubtful,
” he wrote Adams (January 24, 1814), “evidence that parts have
proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the
fabric of very inferior minds.”
Scorning miracles, saints, salvation, damnation, and angelic presences,
Jefferson embraced reason, materialism, and science. He challenged
Patrick Henry, who wanted a Christian theocracy: “[A]n amendment was
proposed by inserting â€Jesus Christ,’ so that [the preamble] should
read â€A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our
religion
’; the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof
that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the
Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and
Infidel of every denomination
” (from Jefferson’s Autobiography,
referring to the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom).
The theme is consistent throughout Jefferson ’s prolific
correspondence: “Question with boldness even the existence of a God” (letter to
Peter Carr, August 10, 1787).
“[The clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will
be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly:
for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every
form of tyranny over the mind of man” (letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush,
September 23, 1800).
“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole
American people which
…thus[built] a wall of separation between church and
state
” (letter to the Danbury [ Connecticut ] Baptist Association,
January 1, 1802).
“History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people
maintaining a free civil government” (letter to Alexander von
Humboldt, December 6, 1813).
“In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to
liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in
return for protection to his own” (letter to Horatio G. Spafford,
March 17, 1814).
“[W]hence arises the morality of the Atheist? …Their virtue, then,
must have had som
Where did all the smart people go!
Where did all the smart people go!
Corporatist bullies? Regressive cheap-laborites? Certainly the right wing has no claim to the Bible or any religious teachings; they have completely twisted them to their own purposes. Economic royalists is good, but it doesn't cover the "ass-kicking" side of the sickness. Sociopaths are what they are, it's really that simple. And their followers are simpletons who haven't evolved for 30,000 years, and are ignoring the fact that the kind of war they envision will destroy humanity. I love the rapturists, they are limited to 144,000, yet there are several million believers. That's a crowded bus! One can only hope that the left has a chance to rise again, or we are finished. And poor republicans will be just as dead as poor dems.
Corporatist bullies? Regressive cheap-laborites? Certainly the right wing has no claim to the Bible or any religious teachings; they have completely twisted them to their own purposes. Economic royalists is good, but it doesn't cover the "ass-kicking" side of the sickness. Sociopaths are what they are, it's really that simple. And their followers are simpletons who haven't evolved for 30,000 years, and are ignoring the fact that the kind of war they envision will destroy humanity. I love the rapturists, they are limited to 144,000, yet there are several million believers. That's a crowded bus! One can only hope that the left has a chance to rise again, or we are finished. And poor republicans will be just as dead as poor dems.
The sheeple will never participate in 'class warfare,' because they all believe they are just one lottery ticket (or a big civil judgment) away from joining the ruling class.
The sheeple will never participate in 'class warfare,' because they all believe they are just one lottery ticket (or a big civil judgment) away from joining the ruling class.
See, Mike is a good example of someone who believes the framed issue of the GOPs supposed populist position.
It's amazing cover, I'll admit. But this is the same party who allows the shifting of the tax burden from corps. to middle America.
As for DLC Dems? Screw 'em. I don't need some millionaire, billionaire robber-baron representing me. Feingold represents me, one of the poorest senators, who is also one of the new progressives.
Thanks for the history lesson on Italy. I never knew that fascism is the combination of corps and government. jeez.
See, Mike is a good example of someone who believes the framed issue of the GOPs supposed populist position.
It's amazing cover, I'll admit. But this is the same party who allows the shifting of the tax burden from corps. to middle America.
As for DLC Dems? Screw 'em. I don't need some millionaire, billionaire robber-baron representing me. Feingold represents me, one of the poorest senators, who is also one of the new progressives.
Thanks for the history lesson on Italy. I never knew that fascism is the combination of corps and government. jeez.
And their followers are simpletons who haven't evolved for 30,000 years, and are ignoring the fact that the kind of war they envision will destroy humanity. I love the rapturists, they are limited to 144,000, yet there are several million believers. That's a crowded bus! One can only hope that the left has a chance to rise again, or we are finished. And poor republicans will be just as dead as poor dems.
This is completely wrong. The GOP is the party with the ideas, furthering the growth of western civilization. The Democrats are the ones who have not evolved. There still stuck in the middle ages.
And their followers are simpletons who haven't evolved for 30,000 years, and are ignoring the fact that the kind of war they envision will destroy humanity. I love the rapturists, they are limited to 144,000, yet there are several million believers. That's a crowded bus! One can only hope that the left has a chance to rise again, or we are finished. And poor republicans will be just as dead as poor dems.
This is completely wrong. The GOP is the party with the ideas, furthering the growth of western civilization. The Democrats are the ones who have not evolved. There still stuck in the middle ages.
More TJ,
W]hence arises the morality of the Atheist? Their virtue, then,
must have had some other foundation than the love of Godť (letter to
Thomas Law, June 13, 1814).
I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know” (letter to Ezra
Stiles, June 25, 1819).
The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus… will be
classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of
Jupiter (letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823).
To hell with that crazy serenity prayer loon-atic. Discussing society in the framework of God is stewpid.
More TJ,
W]hence arises the morality of the Atheist? Their virtue, then,
must have had some other foundation than the love of Godť (letter to
Thomas Law, June 13, 1814).
I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know” (letter to Ezra
Stiles, June 25, 1819).
The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus… will be
classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of
Jupiter (letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823).
To hell with that crazy serenity prayer loon-atic. Discussing society in the framework of God is stewpid.
Yes, clearly the Democrats are the ones "stuck in the middle ages", since they are the ones who believe that demons made dinosaur bones and planted them on earth in order to lead people away from God.
/snark/
Yes, clearly the Democrats are the ones "stuck in the middle ages", since they are the ones who believe that demons made dinosaur bones and planted them on earth in order to lead people away from God.
/snark/
As you know, the party of big business is the Democrats, the GOP is the party of the common man.
What's the old saying about it being better to be thought a fool thatn to open one's mouth and remove all doubt?
Appears we have a winner.
As you know, the party of big business is the Democrats, the GOP is the party of the common man.
What's the old saying about it being better to be thought a fool thatn to open one's mouth and remove all doubt?
Appears we have a winner.
The Sheeple!
I love that.
The Sheeple!
I love that.
See, Mike is a good example of someone who believes the framed issue of the GOPs supposed populist position.
Its real. I got a tax cut from the Republicans. With the Democrats, I got hit with AMT fer crissakes. AMT? Are they nuts? Tax me on my income, my house, my car, my savings account, and then won't even let me take deductions?
Nope, sorry, the Dems lost me with that.
See, Mike is a good example of someone who believes the framed issue of the GOPs supposed populist position.
Its real. I got a tax cut from the Republicans. With the Democrats, I got hit with AMT fer crissakes. AMT? Are they nuts? Tax me on my income, my house, my car, my savings account, and then won't even let me take deductions?
Nope, sorry, the Dems lost me with that.
RMJ,
You're giving us lots of food for thought here, but a minor stylistic complaint for the major-league blogger: you use way too many parenthetical statements in your posts.
If it's important enough to type in the first place, don't turn it into one cluttered aside after another - incorporate it into your post proper. It's easier on the eyes, the brain, and makes your arguments appear more reasoned and less spewed.
I only gripe because I care. I have the same problem myself in my own writing. I am also inordinately fond of footnotes...
RMJ,
You're giving us lots of food for thought here, but a minor stylistic complaint for the major-league blogger: you use way too many parenthetical statements in your posts.
If it's important enough to type in the first place, don't turn it into one cluttered aside after another - incorporate it into your post proper. It's easier on the eyes, the brain, and makes your arguments appear more reasoned and less spewed.
I only gripe because I care. I have the same problem myself in my own writing. I am also inordinately fond of footnotes...
fascism is the combination of corps and government. jeez.
That was Mussolini's condensation:
"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power"
This is interesting, too, given the relationship between 'religion' and the "state" under the Bushistas: "Fascism is a religious conception in which man is seen in his immanent relationship with a superior law and with an objective Will that transcends the particular individual."
The wars of the 20th Century were fought to determine which version of fascism would prevail. Ours (the fascism of the market) did...
fascism is the combination of corps and government. jeez.
That was Mussolini's condensation:
"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power"
This is interesting, too, given the relationship between 'religion' and the "state" under the Bushistas: "Fascism is a religious conception in which man is seen in his immanent relationship with a superior law and with an objective Will that transcends the particular individual."
The wars of the 20th Century were fought to determine which version of fascism would prevail. Ours (the fascism of the market) did...
Yes, clearly the Democrats are the ones "stuck in the middle ages", since they are the ones who believe that demons made dinosaur bones and planted them on earth in order to lead people away from God.
I didn't know that.
There you have it, more proof that the Democrats are out of touch. Someone should tell them to watch Nova so they can get educated.
Yes, clearly the Democrats are the ones "stuck in the middle ages", since they are the ones who believe that demons made dinosaur bones and planted them on earth in order to lead people away from God.
I didn't know that.
There you have it, more proof that the Democrats are out of touch. Someone should tell them to watch Nova so they can get educated.
I'll admit I don't want to create a greater divide in this country. But, I do want to cut the cancer out. Remove those who promote the agendas of giant corps. before the interest of the citizens (who are suppose to have a higher civil standing than a corp.)
I'll admit I don't want to create a greater divide in this country. But, I do want to cut the cancer out. Remove those who promote the agendas of giant corps. before the interest of the citizens (who are suppose to have a higher civil standing than a corp.)
I agree with Jesse Ventura - organized religion is for weak minded people. If you happen to get sucked into what the fundamentalists do - then you deserve to get what you sow. I've never had a television evangelist or some firebrand minister screaming at me instill something 'new'. I happen to believe that God wants better than to scream, yell and instill fear in order to spread the Gospel. I am not ignorant nor, am I hard of hearing. God doesn't have a post office box either.
We are by nature spiritual beings. Therefore we must cultivate our spiritual existence. Using the bible and the Gospel as the 'guidelines' (surely as God intended) instead of 'recited rules and regulations', we then grow from our experience. Using the Gospel and that spititual nature, we find God's intention for ourselves, and therefore human nature.
I think that if one assumes the bible as the whole firm truth, subject to no questioning - then those who see it in that manner are only shortchanging themselves. Myself - God knew that the world as he seen it during his time, would change - and thusly man would have to change correspondingly with it.
Our job (if you will) is to change ourselves accordingly, and then seek out those like ourselves in effort to create a better existence and a higher spiritual plane.
By the same token - as the fundamentalists have shoved their brand of religion into politics and expected not to be questioned: too damm bad.
You question mine, you better expect it in return.
I agree with Jesse Ventura - organized religion is for weak minded people. If you happen to get sucked into what the fundamentalists do - then you deserve to get what you sow. I've never had a television evangelist or some firebrand minister screaming at me instill something 'new'. I happen to believe that God wants better than to scream, yell and instill fear in order to spread the Gospel. I am not ignorant nor, am I hard of hearing. God doesn't have a post office box either.
We are by nature spiritual beings. Therefore we must cultivate our spiritual existence. Using the bible and the Gospel as the 'guidelines' (surely as God intended) instead of 'recited rules and regulations', we then grow from our experience. Using the Gospel and that spititual nature, we find God's intention for ourselves, and therefore human nature.
I think that if one assumes the bible as the whole firm truth, subject to no questioning - then those who see it in that manner are only shortchanging themselves. Myself - God knew that the world as he seen it during his time, would change - and thusly man would have to change correspondingly with it.
Our job (if you will) is to change ourselves accordingly, and then seek out those like ourselves in effort to create a better existence and a higher spiritual plane.
By the same token - as the fundamentalists have shoved their brand of religion into politics and expected not to be questioned: too damm bad.
You question mine, you better expect it in return.
Mike, that was a loan, not a tax cut.
Mike, that was a loan, not a tax cut.
Robert - Ignore the critics. They come out of the woodwork when you are a sub - for all the world as if you were a substitute teacher that the little ijits think they can harass.
Do it your way, in your own style. That's why Atrios asked you.
Robert - Ignore the critics. They come out of the woodwork when you are a sub - for all the world as if you were a substitute teacher that the little ijits think they can harass.
Do it your way, in your own style. That's why Atrios asked you.
Authored by American diplomat Joel Barlow in 1796, the following treaty was sent to the floor of the Senate, June 7, 1797, where it was read aloud in its entirety and unanimously approved. John Adams, haven seen the treaty, signed it and proudly proclaimed it to the Nation.
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
Signed and sealed at Tripoli of Barbary the 3d day of Junad in the year of the Hegira 1211— corresponding with the 4th day of November, 1796,.
Chew on that Chimpy!
Authored by American diplomat Joel Barlow in 1796, the following treaty was sent to the floor of the Senate, June 7, 1797, where it was read aloud in its entirety and unanimously approved. John Adams, haven seen the treaty, signed it and proudly proclaimed it to the Nation.
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
Signed and sealed at Tripoli of Barbary the 3d day of Junad in the year of the Hegira 1211— corresponding with the 4th day of November, 1796,.
Chew on that Chimpy!
I do want to cut the cancer out. Remove those who promote the agendas of giant corps. before the interest of the citizens (who are suppose to have a higher civil standing than a corp.)
Then it is vital that you look at the GOP as the party of small business and small government.
I do want to cut the cancer out. Remove those who promote the agendas of giant corps. before the interest of the citizens (who are suppose to have a higher civil standing than a corp.)
Then it is vital that you look at the GOP as the party of small business and small government.
Tena:
From all I have gathered, I think RMJ has plenty of aplomb with which to regard his critics (as one who also lives both within and without parentheses)...
Tena:
From all I have gathered, I think RMJ has plenty of aplomb with which to regard his critics (as one who also lives both within and without parentheses)...
Interesting post, but I have to disagree with Niebuhr's general idea. I think the US population does make decisions about who lives and who dies and does sacrifice individuals for a moral ideal. And if the society Niebuhr was talking about was immoral what does that make ours? IMHO mad as a homicidal Hatter.
Interesting post, but I have to disagree with Niebuhr's general idea. I think the US population does make decisions about who lives and who dies and does sacrifice individuals for a moral ideal. And if the society Niebuhr was talking about was immoral what does that make ours? IMHO mad as a homicidal Hatter.
Then it is vital that you look at the GOP as the party of small business and small government.
But, Mike, they're not. They;re the party of big business (Enron was Lame Duckie's largest contributor, up to and including providing corporate planes for the Brooks Brothers rioters) and intrusive government (see, e.g., forcing people to pray xian prayers in school, read xian commandments in court, and forcing people to have only xian-approved sex).
Then it is vital that you look at the GOP as the party of small business and small government.
But, Mike, they're not. They;re the party of big business (Enron was Lame Duckie's largest contributor, up to and including providing corporate planes for the Brooks Brothers rioters) and intrusive government (see, e.g., forcing people to pray xian prayers in school, read xian commandments in court, and forcing people to have only xian-approved sex).
Which brings us to the political question: can we change the world? Or only ourselves?
Great discussion topic that needs to be taken to the next level:
Yes, humans change the world and the world changes humans, as one commenter noted...but how/in what circumstances does significant change happen for the common good? What needs to be explored and perhaps is better to be asking is: what factors help and what factors hinder social and (true) moral progress? My husband has written a brilliant book on the subject...which he wants to further revise...but he can't quit his dayjob yet to do it...those pesky bills...plus our cats gotta eat! Stay tuned!
Which brings us to the political question: can we change the world? Or only ourselves?
Great discussion topic that needs to be taken to the next level:
Yes, humans change the world and the world changes humans, as one commenter noted...but how/in what circumstances does significant change happen for the common good? What needs to be explored and perhaps is better to be asking is: what factors help and what factors hinder social and (true) moral progress? My husband has written a brilliant book on the subject...which he wants to further revise...but he can't quit his dayjob yet to do it...those pesky bills...plus our cats gotta eat! Stay tuned!
The GOP's murder rate belies the "growth of western civilization" theme. As Ghandi said, when asked his opinion of western civilization, "It would be good" (paraphrased). The claim that the dems are stuck in the middle ages leaves the repigs stuck in the dark ages, and looking for home. Bush and his neocons are the epitome of cowardice, greed, and lust for power, just to show each other how important they are. They excel at organization, since none has the ability to carry forward on his or her own. They lie at every turn, and run from any battle that can't be outsourced to the poor and ignorant. They make excuses that fall apart on any examination, but the greed of their handmaid media allows them to get away with it. Where was the president on 9/11? Running and hiding in the deepest hole he could find, while having his handlers lie about threats to AF1. Any democrat in the same place would have either paid attention to and prevented the attacks, or showed up to lead the country, even if symbolically, within a couple of hours. And who was chosen to be the target of his impotence and rage? Iraq, a defenseless country with no ties to the events of 9/11, but plenty of oil and brown people of a different religion. Keep in mind (what's left of it, wingnuts) that the U.S. and its coalition have killed twice as many Iraqis as Saddam did in less than half the time. Is the world safer with Saddam gone? Only the 59 million idiots who voted for chickenhawk and his masters think so. We are now Germany, and it won't be long before alliances to weaken our position start to have an effect.
The GOP's murder rate belies the "growth of western civilization" theme. As Ghandi said, when asked his opinion of western civilization, "It would be good" (paraphrased). The claim that the dems are stuck in the middle ages leaves the repigs stuck in the dark ages, and looking for home. Bush and his neocons are the epitome of cowardice, greed, and lust for power, just to show each other how important they are. They excel at organization, since none has the ability to carry forward on his or her own. They lie at every turn, and run from any battle that can't be outsourced to the poor and ignorant. They make excuses that fall apart on any examination, but the greed of their handmaid media allows them to get away with it. Where was the president on 9/11? Running and hiding in the deepest hole he could find, while having his handlers lie about threats to AF1. Any democrat in the same place would have either paid attention to and prevented the attacks, or showed up to lead the country, even if symbolically, within a couple of hours. And who was chosen to be the target of his impotence and rage? Iraq, a defenseless country with no ties to the events of 9/11, but plenty of oil and brown people of a different religion. Keep in mind (what's left of it, wingnuts) that the U.S. and its coalition have killed twice as many Iraqis as Saddam did in less than half the time. Is the world safer with Saddam gone? Only the 59 million idiots who voted for chickenhawk and his masters think so. We are now Germany, and it won't be long before alliances to weaken our position start to have an effect.
Barndog - Here's the thing about religion and America, IMHO. You are not going to eradicate religion. Every time one of these discussions arises, there are many many people here who take the same line of reasoning you and others are taking here now - get rid of religion.
That is not something that can be forced on people. It does not work. We saw that in the 20th century demonstrated as clearly as I've ever seen anything demonstrated.
Religion was losing influence, steadily. It fought back everywhere. Now religious extremists are running far too much of the show on the planet. You cannot approach the problem from that direction.
People feel the need. There is even evidence to suggest that we are hard wired for religious yearnings. You have to work withthat, not against it. You insist on working against it, like the communists did, you lose.
You just lose.
Barndog - Here's the thing about religion and America, IMHO. You are not going to eradicate religion. Every time one of these discussions arises, there are many many people here who take the same line of reasoning you and others are taking here now - get rid of religion.
That is not something that can be forced on people. It does not work. We saw that in the 20th century demonstrated as clearly as I've ever seen anything demonstrated.
Religion was losing influence, steadily. It fought back everywhere. Now religious extremists are running far too much of the show on the planet. You cannot approach the problem from that direction.
People feel the need. There is even evidence to suggest that we are hard wired for religious yearnings. You have to work withthat, not against it. You insist on working against it, like the communists did, you lose.
You just lose.
At one time I did think of the Republican party as the small business party. But, that was because the Dems were ignoring them.
Not anymore. Dems will start paying attention to small business owners, like me. Hell Feingold already does, he goes to every county every year to talk to locals and solve their problems. He has solved many problems for small business owners.
The Repubs are too far right and owe too much to big business to do ANY good for the small business owner.
We are being pushed aside as small corps. for the "greater good" of larger corps.
At one time I did think of the Republican party as the small business party. But, that was because the Dems were ignoring them.
Not anymore. Dems will start paying attention to small business owners, like me. Hell Feingold already does, he goes to every county every year to talk to locals and solve their problems. He has solved many problems for small business owners.
The Repubs are too far right and owe too much to big business to do ANY good for the small business owner.
We are being pushed aside as small corps. for the "greater good" of larger corps.
And to answer the question: Individuals can change themselves and can change the world. It isn't an either/or type of deal. Both happen inevitably and concurrently.
And to answer the question: Individuals can change themselves and can change the world. It isn't an either/or type of deal. Both happen inevitably and concurrently.
Tena,
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." - President Thomas Jefferson
I have not met you, but your no TJ!
Ignore criticism? I believe your gay. Good for you. i love ya anyway you show up to the party. But, How would the gays have entered the mainstream without the ability to criticise teh status quo.
Don't be a Stalinist, Judge Jeffers can take it. He's got books the size of mountains to hide behind! Tort and Contract etceteras.
Tena,
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." - President Thomas Jefferson
I have not met you, but your no TJ!
Ignore criticism? I believe your gay. Good for you. i love ya anyway you show up to the party. But, How would the gays have entered the mainstream without the ability to criticise teh status quo.
Don't be a Stalinist, Judge Jeffers can take it. He's got books the size of mountains to hide behind! Tort and Contract etceteras.
Tena - and also on point: we can't "get rid of religion"; the Constitution prohibits us from outlawing it in any of its many forms and practices. We're not the "change the rules to get what we want" party - they are.
Tena - and also on point: we can't "get rid of religion"; the Constitution prohibits us from outlawing it in any of its many forms and practices. We're not the "change the rules to get what we want" party - they are.
Tena -
I don't work against. I work for it in that circle of those around me who share in those beliefs that closely resemble my own.
In them and with them, I find more strength and desire to move forward.
Meanwhile, the rest are fighting amongst themselves.
I'm not saying that I am correct, but who finds the happiness here?
Tena -
I don't work against. I work for it in that circle of those around me who share in those beliefs that closely resemble my own.
In them and with them, I find more strength and desire to move forward.
Meanwhile, the rest are fighting amongst themselves.
I'm not saying that I am correct, but who finds the happiness here?
konopelli - That's as may be, but I've subbed for Atrios before. It ain't that easy.
Excuse me for wanting to encourage the guest bloggers. I know how it feels to be in charge of this machine.
konopelli - That's as may be, but I've subbed for Atrios before. It ain't that easy.
Excuse me for wanting to encourage the guest bloggers. I know how it feels to be in charge of this machine.
Sure, we'll have religious freedom! As long as it is state supported...
Jesus wouldn't have it any other way. You heathens.
Sure, we'll have religious freedom! As long as it is state supported...
Jesus wouldn't have it any other way. You heathens.
The sheeple will never participate in 'class warfare,' because they all believe they are just one lottery ticket (or a big civil judgment) away from joining the ruling class.
Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding! We have a winner! I'd add: or one more seminar by Tony Robinson or one more investment in the next Enron to the list.
As long as those with money and power can cause those w/o same to think it's their own fault (for not working hard enough) or their own bad luck, those w/ money and power will continue to exploit those w/o. I have several friends who support the Republicans even as their own financial situation worsens. I keep asking them: "Bush and Cheney got rich. Did you?" But they're sure if they just work a little harder or catch a lucky break, they'll be allowed into the Cheney drawing room.
The sheeple will never participate in 'class warfare,' because they all believe they are just one lottery ticket (or a big civil judgment) away from joining the ruling class.
Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding! We have a winner! I'd add: or one more seminar by Tony Robinson or one more investment in the next Enron to the list.
As long as those with money and power can cause those w/o same to think it's their own fault (for not working hard enough) or their own bad luck, those w/ money and power will continue to exploit those w/o. I have several friends who support the Republicans even as their own financial situation worsens. I keep asking them: "Bush and Cheney got rich. Did you?" But they're sure if they just work a little harder or catch a lucky break, they'll be allowed into the Cheney drawing room.
Tena - WTF? Constructive criticism is now a bad thing here?
I had a professor get all up in my grill about my overuse of semicolons this semester. Who the fuck was she? I thought. I'm a semi-pro writer who regularly gets high praise from editors and readers alike and I'm having my semicolons counted by a mediocre teacher in a required course for a professional degree? The nerve.
But you know what? She was right. I was so enamored with my own Classically-influenced periodic writing style that I didn't stop to realize that I could make a better, more coherent argument by using a goddamned period a little more often instead of turning every sentence I wrote into an unnecessary epic journey for my reader.
I am a loyal visitor here and minor-league commenter. And I sure as hell don't appreciate being called a "little ijit", lumped in with the people who are sniping for sniping's sake. All I was saying was that Robert seems to have a lot of interesting stuff to say, so he shouldn't be relegating it all to parenthetical statements and footnotes.
Tena - WTF? Constructive criticism is now a bad thing here?
I had a professor get all up in my grill about my overuse of semicolons this semester. Who the fuck was she? I thought. I'm a semi-pro writer who regularly gets high praise from editors and readers alike and I'm having my semicolons counted by a mediocre teacher in a required course for a professional degree? The nerve.
But you know what? She was right. I was so enamored with my own Classically-influenced periodic writing style that I didn't stop to realize that I could make a better, more coherent argument by using a goddamned period a little more often instead of turning every sentence I wrote into an unnecessary epic journey for my reader.
I am a loyal visitor here and minor-league commenter. And I sure as hell don't appreciate being called a "little ijit", lumped in with the people who are sniping for sniping's sake. All I was saying was that Robert seems to have a lot of interesting stuff to say, so he shouldn't be relegating it all to parenthetical statements and footnotes.
The 'class warfare syndrome' is just another tool to keep the masses at war with each other, founded by governments everywhere.
The 'class warfare syndrome' is just another tool to keep the masses at war with each other, founded by governments everywhere.
Tena,
good point to Semperbarnpoochie.
Religion is fighting back.
And the pendulum will swing the other way again.
Education is the best hope to "privatize" religion. But they don't teach Evolution in Texas, or do they?
one more quote: from Tommy Paine:
"All national insti's of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkisk (Muslim)appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."
consider me terrified.
the biggest problem with religion, like communism, is that humans end up at the controls! flaws and all!
Tena,
good point to Semperbarnpoochie.
Religion is fighting back.
And the pendulum will swing the other way again.
Education is the best hope to "privatize" religion. But they don't teach Evolution in Texas, or do they?
one more quote: from Tommy Paine:
"All national insti's of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkisk (Muslim)appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."
consider me terrified.
the biggest problem with religion, like communism, is that humans end up at the controls! flaws and all!
I hated going to weddings. All the grandmas would poke me saying "You're next". They stopped that when I started doing it to them at funerals.
I hated going to weddings. All the grandmas would poke me saying "You're next". They stopped that when I started doing it to them at funerals.
That argument doesn't fly in my home town in upper Wisconsin. People there are populists and realize that they will never get rich. They are people of the land, forest, whatever.
They went Repub. because they thought the Dems forgot them.
Yeah there people who look at the Repub. as the party of wealth to aspire to, but those are opportunists and not the average grunt who weld or build or drive.
So I disagree with that assessment based on my experience in rural middle america.
But, on the other hand, I know people like you describe. Foolish.
That argument doesn't fly in my home town in upper Wisconsin. People there are populists and realize that they will never get rich. They are people of the land, forest, whatever.
They went Repub. because they thought the Dems forgot them.
Yeah there people who look at the Repub. as the party of wealth to aspire to, but those are opportunists and not the average grunt who weld or build or drive.
So I disagree with that assessment based on my experience in rural middle america.
But, on the other hand, I know people like you describe. Foolish.
Why can't we have smarter trolls?
Why can't we have smarter trolls?
class warfare does not exist in America for several reasons. One being that the people see enough fairness, enough fluidity between the classes, so that they know thier one widget, one idea, on inpsiration, from moving up to the upper end. Perhaps the coolest thing is that we Americans admire the upper class. the idea being that they earned it. Through smarts and hard work. Even inheritances are hard to keep!
class warfare does not exist in America for several reasons. One being that the people see enough fairness, enough fluidity between the classes, so that they know thier one widget, one idea, on inpsiration, from moving up to the upper end. Perhaps the coolest thing is that we Americans admire the upper class. the idea being that they earned it. Through smarts and hard work. Even inheritances are hard to keep!
"Progress" is a myth, one of those darned 'master narratives.' "Progress depends on a linear notion such as history (another mythical 'narrative') by which 'science' denies the circularity and cyclicity of life...
"Progress" is a myth, one of those darned 'master narratives.' "Progress depends on a linear notion such as history (another mythical 'narrative') by which 'science' denies the circularity and cyclicity of life...
And now for something completely different:
Beatnik Santa!
And now for something completely different:
Beatnik Santa!
This post really spoke to me because I have long felt that changing society is next to impossible but could happen by changing enough individuals.
There is certainly evidence that mass movements are possible that cause societal shifts. Once upon a time, India was an English colony. Once upon a time, there was no Christianity.
In the case of Christianity, the word spread because individuals went out and spoke to other individuals and small groups and put themselves at risk to spread a word they felt was important.
A lot of folks here seem to feel the situation is quite desparate in this country but are they willing to make personal sacrifices and put themselves at risk to do any of the following:
1. spread a message of empowerment to the urban poor so they will register and vote in their own interest?
2. appeal to Christians that Jesus' message is a liberal message?
3. build a coalition strong enough to lobby against the corporate control of government?
4. insert your cause/approach here...
One of the problems of the Democratic Party is that they espouse liberal positions without the liberal attitude that this post suggests is necessary for change. That is not universally true but while all liberals can support gay marriage and abortion rights, how many well-to-do Democrats would support changing the structure of public education so that the poor folks in the ghetto will get the same new textbooks and student-to-teacher ratios as their kids are getting in the suburbs? How many Democrats would support universal health care if it led to a Canada-like tax rate? How many Democrats would alter their lifestyles so that they are only consuming their share of the world's resources so that the rest of the world can have its share?
I am not saying this as a holier-than-thou liberal. I have just as much trouble reconciling my immediate needs and desires and how they conflict with the greater good as anyone does. I'm just pointing out that most of us American liberals want change without having to make a significant personal sacrifice. Mr. Jeffers' post suggests to me that we can have change proportional to our individual willingness to sacrifice.
This post really spoke to me because I have long felt that changing society is next to impossible but could happen by changing enough individuals.
There is certainly evidence that mass movements are possible that cause societal shifts. Once upon a time, India was an English colony. Once upon a time, there was no Christianity.
In the case of Christianity, the word spread because individuals went out and spoke to other individuals and small groups and put themselves at risk to spread a word they felt was important.
A lot of folks here seem to feel the situation is quite desparate in this country but are they willing to make personal sacrifices and put themselves at risk to do any of the following:
1. spread a message of empowerment to the urban poor so they will register and vote in their own interest?
2. appeal to Christians that Jesus' message is a liberal message?
3. build a coalition strong enough to lobby against the corporate control of government?
4. insert your cause/approach here...
One of the problems of the Democratic Party is that they espouse liberal positions without the liberal attitude that this post suggests is necessary for change. That is not universally true but while all liberals can support gay marriage and abortion rights, how many well-to-do Democrats would support changing the structure of public education so that the poor folks in the ghetto will get the same new textbooks and student-to-teacher ratios as their kids are getting in the suburbs? How many Democrats would support universal health care if it led to a Canada-like tax rate? How many Democrats would alter their lifestyles so that they are only consuming their share of the world's resources so that the rest of the world can have its share?
I am not saying this as a holier-than-thou liberal. I have just as much trouble reconciling my immediate needs and desires and how they conflict with the greater good as anyone does. I'm just pointing out that most of us American liberals want change without having to make a significant personal sacrifice. Mr. Jeffers' post suggests to me that we can have change proportional to our individual willingness to sacrifice.
da truf might admire the upper class, because of his goal to have as many almighty US Dollars.
Examine your needs and wants lists.
Tell me which one is fulfilled.
da truf might admire the upper class, because of his goal to have as many almighty US Dollars.
Examine your needs and wants lists.
Tell me which one is fulfilled.
class warfare does not exist in America for several reasons. One being that the people see enough fairness, enough fluidity between the classes, so that they know thier one widget, one idea, on inpsiration, from moving up to the upper end. Perhaps the coolest thing is that we Americans admire the upper class. the idea being that they earned it. Through smarts and hard work
Man, are you pathetic. George Bush is in the upper class. You think he earned it through smarts and hard work? Paris Hilton is in the upper class. You think she earned it through smarts and hard work? Keep haning in there, though, sure that if you just work a little bit harder or smarter you'll wind up rich some day.
There most certainly is class warfare in the US. The upper class is winning its war against the middle class. People like you are the proof of this.
class warfare does not exist in America for several reasons. One being that the people see enough fairness, enough fluidity between the classes, so that they know thier one widget, one idea, on inpsiration, from moving up to the upper end. Perhaps the coolest thing is that we Americans admire the upper class. the idea being that they earned it. Through smarts and hard work
Man, are you pathetic. George Bush is in the upper class. You think he earned it through smarts and hard work? Paris Hilton is in the upper class. You think she earned it through smarts and hard work? Keep haning in there, though, sure that if you just work a little bit harder or smarter you'll wind up rich some day.
There most certainly is class warfare in the US. The upper class is winning its war against the middle class. People like you are the proof of this.
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
Can't settle anything til the bills come in. Then we can see how much there is to pay, and who will pay it.
Until then we can go on believing stuff about "the common man" and "small business". Don't want to believe their is a bill due? That's your right. And if someone warns you about the bill, just attack them. That is your right also.
I know, this time we've got it right. This time none of the old rules or principles apply.
Can't settle anything til the bills come in. Then we can see how much there is to pay, and who will pay it.
Until then we can go on believing stuff about "the common man" and "small business". Don't want to believe their is a bill due? That's your right. And if someone warns you about the bill, just attack them. That is your right also.
I know, this time we've got it right. This time none of the old rules or principles apply.
Once upon a time, there was no Christianity.
In the case of Christianity, the word spread because individuals went out and spoke to other individuals and small groups and put themselves at risk to spread a word they felt was important.
In the case of xianity, the word spread because the xians managed to kill everyone who wouldn't bend to their version of reality and to align themselves with those in power who imposed xianity on those w/o power.
Just sayin'
Once upon a time, there was no Christianity.
In the case of Christianity, the word spread because individuals went out and spoke to other individuals and small groups and put themselves at risk to spread a word they felt was important.
In the case of xianity, the word spread because the xians managed to kill everyone who wouldn't bend to their version of reality and to align themselves with those in power who imposed xianity on those w/o power.
Just sayin'
Man, are you pathetic. George Bush is in the upper class. You think he earned it through smarts and hard work? Paris Hilton is in the upper class. You think she earned it through smarts and hard work? Keep haning in there, though, sure that if you just work a little bit harder or smarter you'll wind up rich some day.
There most certainly is class warfare in the US. The upper class is winning its war against the middle class. People like you are the proof of this.
Hecate
A-frikin-men!
Man, are you pathetic. George Bush is in the upper class. You think he earned it through smarts and hard work? Paris Hilton is in the upper class. You think she earned it through smarts and hard work? Keep haning in there, though, sure that if you just work a little bit harder or smarter you'll wind up rich some day.
There most certainly is class warfare in the US. The upper class is winning its war against the middle class. People like you are the proof of this.
Hecate
A-frikin-men!
Jesus was not a socialist, I'm afraid. Although it may appear that way.
Christians, themselves, must fight the fundies. We who are detached from it all, not being Christian, are mostly left to watch the battle. That is, if a battle should occur.
It seems likely it will occur.
Jesus was not a socialist, I'm afraid. Although it may appear that way.
Christians, themselves, must fight the fundies. We who are detached from it all, not being Christian, are mostly left to watch the battle. That is, if a battle should occur.
It seems likely it will occur.
I'm just pointing out that most of us American liberals want change without having to make a significant personal sacrifice
I'm just pointing out that you should speak for yourself, since you've got no idea what sacrifices others on this board, or American liberals in general, have made.
I'm just pointing out that most of us American liberals want change without having to make a significant personal sacrifice
I'm just pointing out that you should speak for yourself, since you've got no idea what sacrifices others on this board, or American liberals in general, have made.
Hecate, are you in the upper class? If not, do you want to be?
Hecate, are you in the upper class? If not, do you want to be?
Hecate, are you in the upper class? If not, do you want to be?
2-pacs-o-sugar
Are you, and do you want to be? Doesn't everyone strive to be better? What's the point?
Hecate, are you in the upper class? If not, do you want to be?
2-pacs-o-sugar
Are you, and do you want to be? Doesn't everyone strive to be better? What's the point?
I tried setting my hotmail password to penis. It said my password wasn't long enough. 
I tried setting my hotmail password to penis. It said my password wasn't long enough.
class warfare does not exist in America for several reasons. One being that the people see enough fairness, enough fluidity between the classes, so that they know thier one widget, one idea, on inpsiration, from moving up to the upper end. Perhaps the coolest thing is that we Americans admire the upper class. the idea being that they earned it. Through smarts and hard work. Even inheritances are hard to keep!
"They earned it. Through smarts and hard work." Wait, you mean like Dubya? Or Barb and Jenna? Paris Hilton? Claus von Bulow?
class warfare does not exist in America for several reasons. One being that the people see enough fairness, enough fluidity between the classes, so that they know thier one widget, one idea, on inpsiration, from moving up to the upper end. Perhaps the coolest thing is that we Americans admire the upper class. the idea being that they earned it. Through smarts and hard work. Even inheritances are hard to keep!
"They earned it. Through smarts and hard work." Wait, you mean like Dubya? Or Barb and Jenna? Paris Hilton? Claus von Bulow?
Damnit, that's was funny.
Damnit, that's was funny.
I like my long-time friend (republican) who 'thinks' he owns his 14+ acres. As he bitches about his $3800.00 yearly tax bill, I have yet to remind him that the taxes are his 'due' for his lease on the property. Property and money are abstractions.
I like my long-time friend (republican) who 'thinks' he owns his 14+ acres. As he bitches about his $3800.00 yearly tax bill, I have yet to remind him that the taxes are his 'due' for his lease on the property. Property and money are abstractions.
Hecate, 20% of Americans think they're already in the top 2% wealth category and another 20% think they will get there: 40% = 2%, dat's some fuzzy math dey be swillin'. (you'll never go broke over estimating the stupidity of the average American.)
-
Hecate, 20% of Americans think they're already in the top 2% wealth category and another 20% think they will get there: 40% = 2%, dat's some fuzzy math dey be swillin'. (you'll never go broke over estimating the stupidity of the average American.)
-
that's=that
that's=that
the xians managed to kill everyone who wouldn't bend to their version of reality
All the wars of medieval and renaissance Europe--from about 800ce through the beginning of the 18th Century--were wars of religious conquest: desert Manicheanism against pagan diversity and tolerance. All those Saint/Kings, Louis, and Stephen, and Wenzeslaus and the rest (seven or eight in all) bought their canonization with the blood of their own people who resisted the imposition of the temporal authority of the Church..."Kill them all and let God sort it out," was pretty much a by-word of the "Christianization" of Europe...
the xians managed to kill everyone who wouldn't bend to their version of reality
All the wars of medieval and renaissance Europe--from about 800ce through the beginning of the 18th Century--were wars of religious conquest: desert Manicheanism against pagan diversity and tolerance. All those Saint/Kings, Louis, and Stephen, and Wenzeslaus and the rest (seven or eight in all) bought their canonization with the blood of their own people who resisted the imposition of the temporal authority of the Church..."Kill them all and let God sort it out," was pretty much a by-word of the "Christianization" of Europe...
2-pacs,
Yes, I am in the upper class. And I'm not foolish enough to think that I wound up here due solely to my own hard work or good luck. Having lived in the upper class, I'm aware, in ways probably not at all visible to those not in the upper class, how well the upper class works to ensure that its sons and daughters receive hundreds of visible and not-so-visible advantages over everyone else, from good schools to straight teet to highly-benefical networking. Nor am I foolish enought to believe that I can, long-term, live well in a world as riven by class differences as is ours.
Now, perhaps you'd like to reveal personal information about yourself?
2-pacs,
Yes, I am in the upper class. And I'm not foolish enough to think that I wound up here due solely to my own hard work or good luck. Having lived in the upper class, I'm aware, in ways probably not at all visible to those not in the upper class, how well the upper class works to ensure that its sons and daughters receive hundreds of visible and not-so-visible advantages over everyone else, from good schools to straight teet to highly-benefical networking. Nor am I foolish enought to believe that I can, long-term, live well in a world as riven by class differences as is ours.
Now, perhaps you'd like to reveal personal information about yourself?
Anyway, all this talk of what is right and how to be convincing, and so on, that's not the problem. The problem is not the message, its getting the message out in the first place. We need more media to get out the message. Mainstream media, MSM, is now getting out the other side's message.
Anyway, all this talk of what is right and how to be convincing, and so on, that's not the problem. The problem is not the message, its getting the message out in the first place. We need more media to get out the message. Mainstream media, MSM, is now getting out the other side's message.
My sister caught me jacking off the other week and called me a pervert. Just the other day, I walked into my room and caught my sister masturbating. So she calls me a pervert again?!? There is no justice in the world...
My sister caught me jacking off the other week and called me a pervert. Just the other day, I walked into my room and caught my sister masturbating. So she calls me a pervert again?!? There is no justice in the world...
teet=teeth.
Sheesh!
teet=teeth.
Sheesh!
Change ourselves first. But I agree that it is a false dichotomy. Changing ourselves does change the world.
Thanks for the post Robert.
Change ourselves first. But I agree that it is a false dichotomy. Changing ourselves does change the world.
Thanks for the post Robert.
Dog,
my wealth? my wealth is my ability to love. no more. Which puts me at the top of the upper calss thatI know.
Hecate,
what's with the vitriol. How come you call me pathetic? And you truncated my post! To serve your point I guess.
And how do people like me prove that the upper class, with all it's maladies of mind, are winning against the middle class? I am of the middle class. I prefer the middle class. And Paris Hilton? who cares about that tramp?
How does this war you percieve manifest itself?
I am not busting, I'm just curious as to how yo see it. I have rich and poor friends, but that's just a money thing, and has nothing to do with wealth.
Dog,
my wealth? my wealth is my ability to love. no more. Which puts me at the top of the upper calss thatI know.
Hecate,
what's with the vitriol. How come you call me pathetic? And you truncated my post! To serve your point I guess.
And how do people like me prove that the upper class, with all it's maladies of mind, are winning against the middle class? I am of the middle class. I prefer the middle class. And Paris Hilton? who cares about that tramp?
How does this war you percieve manifest itself?
I am not busting, I'm just curious as to how yo see it. I have rich and poor friends, but that's just a money thing, and has nothing to do with wealth.
I agree with that rumble.
Wouldn't it be interesting of someone like Olbermann took Rathers job?
I agree with that rumble.
Wouldn't it be interesting of someone like Olbermann took Rathers job?
A little too much religiosity on the boards lately. Even if I had any religion, I don't feel the need to prove my religious bona fides, least of all to Republicans who cruise by here to incite stupid arguments.
I'm not criticizing the Niebuhr post, it's just that there is a lot of godtalk on this board lately, and it leaves me pretty cold.
A little too much religiosity on the boards lately. Even if I had any religion, I don't feel the need to prove my religious bona fides, least of all to Republicans who cruise by here to incite stupid arguments.
I'm not criticizing the Niebuhr post, it's just that there is a lot of godtalk on this board lately, and it leaves me pretty cold.
Ok, how did you get to the "upper class", Hecate and is your upper class on par with say Paris Hilton worth 400 million dollars.
I'm not upper class, I would say Im middle class. I am steadily moving upward and will someday have enough money to be considered by some to be "upper class" does that make me an asshole, and crook when I finally get there?
Ok, how did you get to the "upper class", Hecate and is your upper class on par with say Paris Hilton worth 400 million dollars.
I'm not upper class, I would say Im middle class. I am steadily moving upward and will someday have enough money to be considered by some to be "upper class" does that make me an asshole, and crook when I finally get there?
da trufe, you are thinking in terms of personhood vs. personhood.
That's not the argument. It is personhood vs. corporate personhood.
This cannot exist, it throws democracy out of whack. Personhood is for humans, not a governmental classification.
da trufe, you are thinking in terms of personhood vs. personhood.
That's not the argument. It is personhood vs. corporate personhood.
This cannot exist, it throws democracy out of whack. Personhood is for humans, not a governmental classification.
ecate:
It's true: None know better than the upper class how spurious and specious are the claims of entitlement, and the rationales behind them, which the upper class puts forth to persuade the yokels of their right to their special status...and the justice of the system...and the yokels never seem to learn a thing...they just keep on buying it, because of how cunningly the system preserves the appearance of mobility...
ecate:
It's true: None know better than the upper class how spurious and specious are the claims of entitlement, and the rationales behind them, which the upper class puts forth to persuade the yokels of their right to their special status...and the justice of the system...and the yokels never seem to learn a thing...they just keep on buying it, because of how cunningly the system preserves the appearance of mobility...
da truth="rob"=troll
.
da truth="rob"=troll
.
"Wouldn't it be interesting of someone like Olbermann took Rathers job?"
A step in the right direction, for sure. I'm pretty sure they want someone more docile, though.
"Wouldn't it be interesting of someone like Olbermann took Rathers job?"
A step in the right direction, for sure. I'm pretty sure they want someone more docile, though.
Hecate-I liked teet better
Hecate-I liked teet better
I hear ya, pipe-dream. Keeps me going.
I hear ya, pipe-dream. Keeps me going.
Q: The President used the phrase, class warfare, again today, alluding to criticism of his tax plan. Why is it class warfare to point out that the overwhelming majority of the tax cut would go to the wealthiest people in the country?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I'll tell you, it's class warfare to say that there are wrong people in America and these wrong people are not deserving of tax relief. The President doesn't look at the American people and say, I'm from the government, I know who the right people are ... I'm from the government, I know who the wrong people are. The President believes that's a divisive approach, and the President seeks an approach that unifies people. And that's why he wants to work closely with members of Congress, just as he did in 2001, to try to arrive at an agreement so taxes can be cut. And he will fight for the plan that he proposed.
Q: Does that mean that anybody who disagrees with him is having a divisive approach?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think that there's a ... there are ways of disagreeing. But to say that there are wrong people is certainly a divisive approach.
Q: The President used the phrase, class warfare, again today, alluding to criticism of his tax plan. Why is it class warfare to point out that the overwhelming majority of the tax cut would go to the wealthiest people in the country?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I'll tell you, it's class warfare to say that there are wrong people in America and these wrong people are not deserving of tax relief. The President doesn't look at the American people and say, I'm from the government, I know who the right people are ... I'm from the government, I know who the wrong people are. The President believes that's a divisive approach, and the President seeks an approach that unifies people. And that's why he wants to work closely with members of Congress, just as he did in 2001, to try to arrive at an agreement so taxes can be cut. And he will fight for the plan that he proposed.
Q: Does that mean that anybody who disagrees with him is having a divisive approach?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think that there's a ... there are ways of disagreeing. But to say that there are wrong people is certainly a divisive approach.
rumble wrote:
Christians, themselves, must fight the fundies. We who are detached from it all, not being Christian, are mostly left to watch the battle.
Christian or not, you are a moral being. You're responsible for your beliefs and your actions, and there's no reason why you can't join in the battle of ideas with anybody.
It's pointless for you to argue theology with Christians, but theology, morality, and ethics are different things. Don't buy into the fundie argument that only christians can talk about morality.
rumble wrote:
Christians, themselves, must fight the fundies. We who are detached from it all, not being Christian, are mostly left to watch the battle.
Christian or not, you are a moral being. You're responsible for your beliefs and your actions, and there's no reason why you can't join in the battle of ideas with anybody.
It's pointless for you to argue theology with Christians, but theology, morality, and ethics are different things. Don't buy into the fundie argument that only christians can talk about morality.
tu-packs
No, it makes you a hero!
keep up the good work!
Hecate has her MArx hat on today. which
neglects to consider the Middle Class as the ruling class. She's left with the prols and the bourgouise of yesteryears discussion.
An old nag of a discussion if I ever saw one!
tu-packs
No, it makes you a hero!
keep up the good work!
Hecate has her MArx hat on today. which
neglects to consider the Middle Class as the ruling class. She's left with the prols and the bourgouise of yesteryears discussion.
An old nag of a discussion if I ever saw one!
2-pacs:
Why are you worried about how others view your 'class status'?
trufe... yout arguments and reasoning are more than circular in nature. Resembles a slinky to me.
2-pacs:
Why are you worried about how others view your 'class status'?
trufe... yout arguments and reasoning are more than circular in nature. Resembles a slinky to me.
Good point, bunny.
Good point, bunny.
None know better than the upper class how spurious and specious are the claims of entitlement, and the rationales behind them, which the upper class puts forth to persuade the yokels of their right to their special status...and the justice of the system...and the yokels never seem to learn a thing...they just keep on buying it
Konopelli,
It's so true, and it's so sad. So many people just have no idea. I do some interviewing for our law firm and I can tell, usually just from the resume, but certainly w/in 10 seconds of meeting an applicant whether they're from the upper class or not. Since most of the lawyers here also came from the upper class, guess which kind of applicant they almost naturally feel most comfortable around? Which kind of candidate they feel most comfortable hiring to send out to meet the heads of Fortune 500 companies? Guess which candidates are likely to know someone who knows someone who knows lawyers here at the firm? Guess which candidates understand how to negotiate this world most easily, having drawn it in with thier mother's milk? But poor saps keep on believing that if they'd just work a little bit harder, they, too would be accepted into this world. It even happens once in a while -- just often enough to allow the upper clas to point to those examples and convince most Americans that their economic situation is their own fault.
Oh, look, plasma screen tvs! Only 18.5% interest and easy monthly payments!!
None know better than the upper class how spurious and specious are the claims of entitlement, and the rationales behind them, which the upper class puts forth to persuade the yokels of their right to their special status...and the justice of the system...and the yokels never seem to learn a thing...they just keep on buying it
Konopelli,
It's so true, and it's so sad. So many people just have no idea. I do some interviewing for our law firm and I can tell, usually just from the resume, but certainly w/in 10 seconds of meeting an applicant whether they're from the upper class or not. Since most of the lawyers here also came from the upper class, guess which kind of applicant they almost naturally feel most comfortable around? Which kind of candidate they feel most comfortable hiring to send out to meet the heads of Fortune 500 companies? Guess which candidates are likely to know someone who knows someone who knows lawyers here at the firm? Guess which candidates understand how to negotiate this world most easily, having drawn it in with thier mother's milk? But poor saps keep on believing that if they'd just work a little bit harder, they, too would be accepted into this world. It even happens once in a while -- just often enough to allow the upper clas to point to those examples and convince most Americans that their economic situation is their own fault.
Oh, look, plasma screen tvs! Only 18.5% interest and easy monthly payments!!
What if the war in Afghanistan was fought with midgets! Would they be as infantry, or as ammunition?
What if the war in Afghanistan was fought with midgets! Would they be as infantry, or as ammunition?
2-pac-
Where ya posting from? (I assume a public library).
.
2-pac-
Where ya posting from? (I assume a public library).
.
2-packs:
nobody ever got REALLY rich without being an asshole...nobody ever got REALLY powerful without being an asshole...if you ever become REALLY rich or REALLY powerful, it will be because you have realized your hidden asshole; have coopted your humanity ... that's just the way it is...
Most of the denizens of the "upper class" were born therein...or within sight of it...no one who is not part of the arrangement knows with what contempt and condescension old money regards the new...you think its only a figment of the screenwriters' imaginings, but it's not...
One doesn't join the upper class. One is born there, or one is admitted. Just don't think it has anything in particular to do with intrinsic merit or reward for services rendered...
2-packs:
nobody ever got REALLY rich without being an asshole...nobody ever got REALLY powerful without being an asshole...if you ever become REALLY rich or REALLY powerful, it will be because you have realized your hidden asshole; have coopted your humanity ... that's just the way it is...
Most of the denizens of the "upper class" were born therein...or within sight of it...no one who is not part of the arrangement knows with what contempt and condescension old money regards the new...you think its only a figment of the screenwriters' imaginings, but it's not...
One doesn't join the upper class. One is born there, or one is admitted. Just don't think it has anything in particular to do with intrinsic merit or reward for services rendered...
I know several people who call themselves "Repubican" who are actually cultural and/or political, social climbers. One of these people is one of my siblings. We were raised by a long and distinguished line of staunch Irish, Catholic, Democrats. This particular sibling wants so badly to see herself and be thought of by others as an uppity upper crust Republican and not as the child of a union member and blue collar worker. She has totally forgotten where she came from. She is married, 3 kids and aspires to hang w/ people she refers to as "successful". Her idea of "success" of course is money and the acquisition of gobs of things. She is no more a Republican than I am, but that's the class of people she aspires to belong to.
She and her husband try very hard to appear that they are "to the manor born", but they struggle to keep their heads above water and are very middle class. Her morality and/or ethics are a joke. She's had an affair, an abortion (in college) but is front and center in church every Sunday and is now a fund raiser for Right to Life organizations and I'm sure she'e be mortified if any of her current friends knew her history. She is only one of the people I know who is this sort of "Republican". Most of them are very class conscience people who need to feel that they belong to an elite crowd. I think there are hundreds of thousands of this type of "Republicans". Which might be the downfall of the Conservative Republican party. Thousands & thousands of their members are as vacuous and superficial as their Fearless Leader.
I know several people who call themselves "Repubican" who are actually cultural and/or political, social climbers. One of these people is one of my siblings. We were raised by a long and distinguished line of staunch Irish, Catholic, Democrats. This particular sibling wants so badly to see herself and be thought of by others as an uppity upper crust Republican and not as the child of a union member and blue collar worker. She has totally forgotten where she came from. She is married, 3 kids and aspires to hang w/ people she refers to as "successful". Her idea of "success" of course is money and the acquisition of gobs of things. She is no more a Republican than I am, but that's the class of people she aspires to belong to.
She and her husband try very hard to appear that they are "to the manor born", but they struggle to keep their heads above water and are very middle class. Her morality and/or ethics are a joke. She's had an affair, an abortion (in college) but is front and center in church every Sunday and is now a fund raiser for Right to Life organizations and I'm sure she'e be mortified if any of her current friends knew her history. She is only one of the people I know who is this sort of "Republican". Most of them are very class conscience people who need to feel that they belong to an elite crowd. I think there are hundreds of thousands of this type of "Republicans". Which might be the downfall of the Conservative Republican party. Thousands & thousands of their members are as vacuous and superficial as their Fearless Leader.
godless midwesterner - thou art, I think, a bit too sensitive. There are a multiplicity of religious beliefs held by those who post to these boards; short of proselytizing and trying to convince others of the rightness of those beliefs (and the concurrent "wrongness" of others), I can see no reason for offense.
We on the left can be a bit too quick to dismiss "people of faith." Religious belief or faith is not the enemy; the insistence that all others practice the same faith or prescribe to the same beliefs is. An expression of faith is, from that persepective, not offensive in and of itself.
godless midwesterner - thou art, I think, a bit too sensitive. There are a multiplicity of religious beliefs held by those who post to these boards; short of proselytizing and trying to convince others of the rightness of those beliefs (and the concurrent "wrongness" of others), I can see no reason for offense.
We on the left can be a bit too quick to dismiss "people of faith." Religious belief or faith is not the enemy; the insistence that all others practice the same faith or prescribe to the same beliefs is. An expression of faith is, from that persepective, not offensive in and of itself.
Sperm Accident,
what's with this?
da truth="rob"=troll
.
spork_incident |"
what's your point? oh, I am not conforming to your thread!
fuck off loser
Sperm Accident,
what's with this?
da truth="rob"=troll
.
spork_incident |"
what's your point? oh, I am not conforming to your thread!
fuck off loser
Jennifer, I think thee misunderstand. I don't find all this talk about Democrats and faih offensive, just boring and sort of pathetic. If Democrats sink to pandering for fundamentalist votes, then it really is time for a third party.
I do kind of like this class war theme. It's sort of new.
Jennifer, I think thee misunderstand. I don't find all this talk about Democrats and faih offensive, just boring and sort of pathetic. If Democrats sink to pandering for fundamentalist votes, then it really is time for a third party.
I do kind of like this class war theme. It's sort of new.
I'm going to become rich and famous after I invent a device that allows you to pie people in the face over the internet.
I'm going to become rich and famous after I invent a device that allows you to pie people in the face over the internet.
"rob"-
Try to be a little less childish, m'kay?
.
"rob"-
Try to be a little less childish, m'kay?
.
da truf,
You are, in fact, rob. You've admitted as much. So I'd be careful about telling spork_incident to fuck off for pointing out that fact.
da truf,
You are, in fact, rob. You've admitted as much. So I'd be careful about telling spork_incident to fuck off for pointing out that fact.
I want a war
Between the rich & the poor
Class war
Class war
Class war
Class war
I want a war
Between the rich & the poor
Class war
Class war
Class war
Class war
American Feast - Don't count on it. I thought I had hit the big time with my Troll-Repellant Bat Spray™ but here I am, still toiling along as a drone.
American Feast - Don't count on it. I thought I had hit the big time with my Troll-Repellant Bat Spray™ but here I am, still toiling along as a drone.
Off topic:
My girlfriend works at the Bobbie Brown counter in the Boston Store (inside a giant mall). She told me that the store had it's best sales day EVER.
At the same time the dollar keeps dropping to new lows and the euro hits new highs.
What will be the result of these two trends?
Anyone got some thoughts?
Off topic:
My girlfriend works at the Bobbie Brown counter in the Boston Store (inside a giant mall). She told me that the store had it's best sales day EVER.
At the same time the dollar keeps dropping to new lows and the euro hits new highs.
What will be the result of these two trends?
Anyone got some thoughts?
If Democrats sink to pandering for fundamentalist votes, then it really is time for a third party.
We are NOT pandering for their votes. Our party doesn't share the same "values" as the fundamentalists. We don't sell our souls to the devil, so we can lie, cheat, and steal to obtain "things" that in their minds would make us look successful.
If Democrats sink to pandering for fundamentalist votes, then it really is time for a third party.
We are NOT pandering for their votes. Our party doesn't share the same "values" as the fundamentalists. We don't sell our souls to the devil, so we can lie, cheat, and steal to obtain "things" that in their minds would make us look successful.
I want a war
Between the rich & the poor
I think in America the class war is a war by the rich against the middle class, at least at this point in time. The rich need a class of poor people who will work for whatever wages the rich want to offer -- the larger that class is, the better. The rich are less enthusiastic about a middle class that can tell the rich to shove it. They're useful as consumers, but less useful as laborers. And with global corporatism, there are lots of willing consumers all over the globe. Hence, the current, and currently-successful, effort to bleed the middle class to enrich the upper class.
I want a war
Between the rich & the poor
I think in America the class war is a war by the rich against the middle class, at least at this point in time. The rich need a class of poor people who will work for whatever wages the rich want to offer -- the larger that class is, the better. The rich are less enthusiastic about a middle class that can tell the rich to shove it. They're useful as consumers, but less useful as laborers. And with global corporatism, there are lots of willing consumers all over the globe. Hence, the current, and currently-successful, effort to bleed the middle class to enrich the upper class.
completely ot, but here's a link to a long out of print literary classic, sisters, by lynne cheney.
http://www.livejournal.com/users...rs/lynnecheney/
completely ot, but here's a link to a long out of print literary classic, sisters, by lynne cheney.
http://www.livejournal.com/users...rs/lynnecheney/
Jennifer-Great idea with the troll-repellant bat spray. The first time I used it I could see them fleeing into the night.
Jennifer-Great idea with the troll-repellant bat spray. The first time I used it I could see them fleeing into the night.
I used to think lysol was a lice repellent. One day I sprayed it in my hair before I went to school cuz they were doing lice checks. I got a rash :|
I used to think lysol was a lice repellent. One day I sprayed it in my hair before I went to school cuz they were doing lice checks. I got a rash :|
Robert writes: "The duty of a society, in other words, is to insure the survival of its constituency."
A good question would be; survive for how long? This week, month, quarter, election cycle, or to the sixth generation as the Iroquois elders tried to practice?
Perhaps society would act in a more "moral" fashion if it held to a long term perspective.
Robert writes: "The duty of a society, in other words, is to insure the survival of its constituency."
A good question would be; survive for how long? This week, month, quarter, election cycle, or to the sixth generation as the Iroquois elders tried to practice?
Perhaps society would act in a more "moral" fashion if it held to a long term perspective.
What will be the result of these two trends?
SCROOGE: Are there no prisons?
MRS. WINSLOW: Plenty of prisons.
SCROOGE: And workhouses? Are they still in operation?
What will be the result of these two trends?
SCROOGE: Are there no prisons?
MRS. WINSLOW: Plenty of prisons.
SCROOGE: And workhouses? Are they still in operation?
But, Mike, they're not. They;re the party of big business (Enron was Lame Duckie's largest contributor, up to and including providing corporate planes for the Brooks Brothers rioters) and intrusive government (see, e.g., forcing people to pray xian prayers in school, read xian commandments in court, and forcing people to have only xian-approved sex).
Hecate
In the debates, Bush mentioned small business numerous times, Kerry none. BTW, forcing prayer in school is a good think IMO because we are becoming a narcissitic nation, and we need to reinstate discipline.
But, Mike, they're not. They;re the party of big business (Enron was Lame Duckie's largest contributor, up to and including providing corporate planes for the Brooks Brothers rioters) and intrusive government (see, e.g., forcing people to pray xian prayers in school, read xian commandments in court, and forcing people to have only xian-approved sex).
Hecate
In the debates, Bush mentioned small business numerous times, Kerry none. BTW, forcing prayer in school is a good think IMO because we are becoming a narcissitic nation, and we need to reinstate discipline.
Hecate,
Who cares who I am. Answer my question fair moderater.
Why did you call me "pathetic" for a view? You are the troll! And upper class
one to boot! Snobs make me nauseous.
Hecate,
Who cares who I am. Answer my question fair moderater.
Why did you call me "pathetic" for a view? You are the troll! And upper class
one to boot! Snobs make me nauseous.
Remember also, as the base of consumers become even more global, American companies will have less and less use for middle-class workers. Corps. export jobs, then they export themselves. Still selling to Americans as it gets lodged into other countries. Once a global dominance is attained, who needs America? We are like a stepping stone.
Remember also, as the base of consumers become even more global, American companies will have less and less use for middle-class workers. Corps. export jobs, then they export themselves. Still selling to Americans as it gets lodged into other countries. Once a global dominance is attained, who needs America? We are like a stepping stone.
"I have news for you, Mussolini coined the term Corpratist, and it doesn't apply to the GOP. As you know, the party of big business is the Democrats, the GOP is the party of the common man.
Mike | Email | Homepage | 11.27.04 - 12:27 pm | # "
Who fought for the minimum wage increases?
Who fought for unions and the power of collective bargaining so working men and women could get a decent living wage?
Who fights for the rights of the 'common man' to take 'big business' to court to address being wronged by faulty products that had maimed or killed their loved ones?
Who fights to reduce the tax burden of the 'common man' instead of 'big business'?
Who fights to ensure that every 'common man' has health ensurance, social security, and education?
Buddy you must be pulling our strings cause I can tell you that no conservative, republican, ever did any of the above unless it was to win reelection. And if you honestly think that to be in touch with the common man you have to talk like a cowboy, enjoy nascar, smoke, and drink beer then go fuck yourself and that cousin you married.
MYOB'
.
"I have news for you, Mussolini coined the term Corpratist, and it doesn't apply to the GOP. As you know, the party of big business is the Democrats, the GOP is the party of the common man.
Mike | Email | Homepage | 11.27.04 - 12:27 pm | # "
Who fought for the minimum wage increases?
Who fought for unions and the power of collective bargaining so working men and women could get a decent living wage?
Who fights for the rights of the 'common man' to take 'big business' to court to address being wronged by faulty products that had maimed or killed their loved ones?
Who fights to reduce the tax burden of the 'common man' instead of 'big business'?
Who fights to ensure that every 'common man' has health ensurance, social security, and education?
Buddy you must be pulling our strings cause I can tell you that no conservative, republican, ever did any of the above unless it was to win reelection. And if you honestly think that to be in touch with the common man you have to talk like a cowboy, enjoy nascar, smoke, and drink beer then go fuck yourself and that cousin you married.
MYOB'
.
I'd put up the rent money that Olberman doesn't take over for Rather. It'll be some vacuous, smooth-faced, corporate apparatchik like Brian Williams. Who is that at CBS? I don't pay enough attention to know...
And WTF: Last night's interminable, self-congratulatory, nauseatingly adulatory adulatory Tom Brokaw retrospective --the highlight of which, from what i could tell from Brokaw's demeanor, was his complicity in the Clinton scandals-- with the empty-headed media whore on DateLine?
This is funny, too: Cal Thomas calling anyone a fossil? I didn't think Cal believed in fossils.
I'd put up the rent money that Olberman doesn't take over for Rather. It'll be some vacuous, smooth-faced, corporate apparatchik like Brian Williams. Who is that at CBS? I don't pay enough attention to know...
And WTF: Last night's interminable, self-congratulatory, nauseatingly adulatory adulatory Tom Brokaw retrospective --the highlight of which, from what i could tell from Brokaw's demeanor, was his complicity in the Clinton scandals-- with the empty-headed media whore on DateLine?
This is funny, too: Cal Thomas calling anyone a fossil? I didn't think Cal believed in fossils.
da trufe=smegma on toast
da trufe=smegma on toast
Who cares who I am.
You apparently do, having changed your name from rob to its current iteration. Of course, that happened after you'd trolled several threads to death as rob and then tried to reappear as someone new.
I explained in my post precisely why you are pathetic. Go back and re-read.
Who cares who I am.
You apparently do, having changed your name from rob to its current iteration. Of course, that happened after you'd trolled several threads to death as rob and then tried to reappear as someone new.
I explained in my post precisely why you are pathetic. Go back and re-read.
So where the hell do u get this bot program?
So where the hell do u get this bot program?
My girlfriend works at the Bobbie Brown counter in the Boston Store (inside a giant mall). She told me that the store had it's best sales day EVER.
At the same time the dollar keeps dropping to new lows and the euro hits new highs.
What will be the result of these two trends?
Anyone got some thoughts?
dieselcreek
Lots and lots of bankruptcy in the next year.
My girlfriend works at the Bobbie Brown counter in the Boston Store (inside a giant mall). She told me that the store had it's best sales day EVER.
At the same time the dollar keeps dropping to new lows and the euro hits new highs.
What will be the result of these two trends?
Anyone got some thoughts?
dieselcreek
Lots and lots of bankruptcy in the next year.
If snobs make you nauseous, rob, it is probably because you have lacked the opportunity or ability to be one...
If snobs make you nauseous, rob, it is probably because you have lacked the opportunity or ability to be one...
My girlfriend works at the Bobbie Brown counter in the Boston Store (inside a giant mall). She told me that the store had it's best sales day EVER.
At the same time the dollar keeps dropping to new lows and the euro hits new highs.
What will be the result of these two trends?
Anyone got some thoughts?
As Arnold said, quit being economic girlie-men. Or from an earlier time, quit being chicken little. I'd worry about the econonmy if we didn't possess a military that gaurantees US power in key strategic areas.
My girlfriend works at the Bobbie Brown counter in the Boston Store (inside a giant mall). She told me that the store had it's best sales day EVER.
At the same time the dollar keeps dropping to new lows and the euro hits new highs.
What will be the result of these two trends?
Anyone got some thoughts?
As Arnold said, quit being economic girlie-men. Or from an earlier time, quit being chicken little. I'd worry about the econonmy if we didn't possess a military that gaurantees US power in key strategic areas.
I think that this post, particularly because it focuses on one of Niebuhr's earliest books - written when he was struggling with his own residual pacifism and "marxianism" - misrepresents the totality of Niebuhr's message. Rejection of the "social gospel" of the 20s-30s and popular front "progressivism" that tended to be blind to the nightmare of Stalinism led Niebuhr to what would today be considered a very staunch and aggressive New Deal liberalism. His political comrades in the fifties were folks like Eleanor Roosevelt and Hubert Humphrey who were, frankly, far to the left of most of today's "liberal Democrats". Niebuhr's politics were in Wellstone territory, despite all of the intellectual/theological rejection of "fundamentally transformative" ideologies. He was a pragmatist who lived through an era when messianic ideologies that resulted in dictatorships appeared to prevail on the left and right and both conservatives and liberals were often enticed or apologetic when faced with them. For all of his muscular "cold war" politics that were occasionally as naive and reductionist as the Henry Wallace types he opposed, Niebuhr was an opponent of the Vietnam war and broke with his long-time ally Hubert Humphrey over the war. When I read crap like David Brooks' recent invocation of Niebuhr against opponents of the war in Iraq, I cringe at the dishonest pimping of a complex pragmatic Christian who would have found a political landscape in which even Democrats are afraid to proudly call themselves liberals and the projection of American power is crassly put forward as a legitimate end in itself.
I think that this post, particularly because it focuses on one of Niebuhr's earliest books - written when he was struggling with his own residual pacifism and "marxianism" - misrepresents the totality of Niebuhr's message. Rejection of the "social gospel" of the 20s-30s and popular front "progressivism" that tended to be blind to the nightmare of Stalinism led Niebuhr to what would today be considered a very staunch and aggressive New Deal liberalism. His political comrades in the fifties were folks like Eleanor Roosevelt and Hubert Humphrey who were, frankly, far to the left of most of today's "liberal Democrats". Niebuhr's politics were in Wellstone territory, despite all of the intellectual/theological rejection of "fundamentally transformative" ideologies. He was a pragmatist who lived through an era when messianic ideologies that resulted in dictatorships appeared to prevail on the left and right and both conservatives and liberals were often enticed or apologetic when faced with them. For all of his muscular "cold war" politics that were occasionally as naive and reductionist as the Henry Wallace types he opposed, Niebuhr was an opponent of the Vietnam war and broke with his long-time ally Hubert Humphrey over the war. When I read crap like David Brooks' recent invocation of Niebuhr against opponents of the war in Iraq, I cringe at the dishonest pimping of a complex pragmatic Christian who would have found a political landscape in which even Democrats are afraid to proudly call themselves liberals and the projection of American power is crassly put forward as a legitimate end in itself.
Latest FaBlog: The Art of Hate
Latest FaBlog: The Art of Hate
lovely hecate,
sticking to calling me pathetic. you are the troll. and this thread is useless. Enjoy the circle jerk to nowhere! Bye bye
lovely hecate,
sticking to calling me pathetic. you are the troll. and this thread is useless. Enjoy the circle jerk to nowhere! Bye bye
I hate when you're trying to own someone
and then you own yourself.
I hate when you're trying to own someone
and then you own yourself.
happy now?
happy now?
Maybe "pandering" is a strong word, but why else all this yammer about Democrats and "values" since the election? It's just dumb. But since the Democrats won't move to the left, I guess that's what the party will be reduced to: trying to pry the faithful away from the Party of God.
I don't care what the "values" of the GOP faithful are, I don't care what your values are, and I hope you don't care what mine are. In a better world, it wouldn't matter at all. If the Democrats want to fight on that terrain, that's their choice, but it's a loser.
Hecate is NOT a troll!
Maybe "pandering" is a strong word, but why else all this yammer about Democrats and "values" since the election? It's just dumb. But since the Democrats won't move to the left, I guess that's what the party will be reduced to: trying to pry the faithful away from the Party of God.
I don't care what the "values" of the GOP faithful are, I don't care what your values are, and I hope you don't care what mine are. In a better world, it wouldn't matter at all. If the Democrats want to fight on that terrain, that's their choice, but it's a loser.
Hecate is NOT a troll!
intrusive government (see, e.g., forcing people to pray xian prayers in school, read xian commandments in court, and forcing people to have only xian-approved sex).
Hecate
[snip] BTW, forcing prayer in school is a good think IMO because we are becoming a narcissitic nation, and we need to reinstate discipline.
Now explain again to me how it's the Democrats who are intrusive? Naw, never mind. We know you're lying out of your ass.
And that's what prayer is all about in the minds of these assholes, ladies and gents: reinstating discipline. Spoken by someone who's obviously never prayed a real prayer in his life.
intrusive government (see, e.g., forcing people to pray xian prayers in school, read xian commandments in court, and forcing people to have only xian-approved sex).
Hecate
[snip] BTW, forcing prayer in school is a good think IMO because we are becoming a narcissitic nation, and we need to reinstate discipline.
Now explain again to me how it's the Democrats who are intrusive? Naw, never mind. We know you're lying out of your ass.
And that's what prayer is all about in the minds of these assholes, ladies and gents: reinstating discipline. Spoken by someone who's obviously never prayed a real prayer in his life.
CORRECTION TO THAT LAST SENTENCE
"...would have found a political landscape APPALLING in which..."
CORRECTION TO THAT LAST SENTENCE
"...would have found a political landscape APPALLING in which..."
I'm not being a girlie-man. It's an interesting question.
Why is consumer confidence so good?
I wonder if China and Russia and Japan will wait until after Christmas before they really start reducing their dollar holdings. I hear it's already happening, but at a very small pace.
I'm not being a girlie-man. It's an interesting question.
Why is consumer confidence so good?
I wonder if China and Russia and Japan will wait until after Christmas before they really start reducing their dollar holdings. I hear it's already happening, but at a very small pace.
Buddy you must be pulling our strings cause I can tell you that no conservative, republican, ever did any of the above unless it was to win reelection. And if you honestly think that to be in touch with the common man you have to talk like a cowboy, enjoy nascar, smoke, and drink beer then go fuck yourself and that cousin you married.
Oh man, that's the most persuasive rhetoric ever used in a debate. I can't beat that. Actually I can without having to call you names.
You can't even define the common man. Have you ever heard the concept that a rising tide floats all boats? As the rich get richer, so does the vaunted middle class you try to hold up as the ideal. But to the common man, the ideal is to become one of the wealthy, which only happens here in the USA. Class warfare here is a joke. This is the United States of Achievement. Achieve and you will be rewarded. Handsomely.
Buddy you must be pulling our strings cause I can tell you that no conservative, republican, ever did any of the above unless it was to win reelection. And if you honestly think that to be in touch with the common man you have to talk like a cowboy, enjoy nascar, smoke, and drink beer then go fuck yourself and that cousin you married.
Oh man, that's the most persuasive rhetoric ever used in a debate. I can't beat that. Actually I can without having to call you names.
You can't even define the common man. Have you ever heard the concept that a rising tide floats all boats? As the rich get richer, so does the vaunted middle class you try to hold up as the ideal. But to the common man, the ideal is to become one of the wealthy, which only happens here in the USA. Class warfare here is a joke. This is the United States of Achievement. Achieve and you will be rewarded. Handsomely.
From my own experience and personal observation I view the strength of the right
derived from those individuals who to their own detriment both financially and morally believe that those people in need are sinners and deserve what they get, and those people who organize their decision making process with money at the top of the list and humanity somewhere near the bottom. What distresses me is the fact that after all of the millenia of human existence
we are just barbaric or more so than ever.
From my own experience and personal observation I view the strength of the right
derived from those individuals who to their own detriment both financially and morally believe that those people in need are sinners and deserve what they get, and those people who organize their decision making process with money at the top of the list and humanity somewhere near the bottom. What distresses me is the fact that after all of the millenia of human existence
we are just barbaric or more so than ever.
If the Democrats want to fight on that terrain, that's their choice, but it's a loser.
Amen. As we just saw.
If the Democrats want to fight on that terrain, that's their choice, but it's a loser.
Amen. As we just saw.
I think that this post, particularly because it focuses on one of Niebuhr's earliest books - written when he was struggling with his own residual pacifism and "marxianism" - misrepresents the totality of Niebuhr's message.
Well, I didn't want to wander off into The Nature and Destiny of Man.
Trying to remain philosophical here, not drag this into theological territory (which is my base, but not my sole playing field, also).
When I read crap like David Brooks' recent invocation of Niebuhr against opponents of the war in Iraq, I cringe at the dishonest pimping of a complex pragmatic Christian who would have found a political landscape in which even Democrats are afraid to proudly call themselves liberals and the projection of American power is crassly put forward as a legitimate end in itself. Agreed. And would say "Sorry I missed that from Brooks," except I'm not.
Brooks thinks in thimbles. Niebuhr (which was my intention in bringing him to this blog) thought in gallons and even acre-feet. If that metaphor even has any meaning.
I think that this post, particularly because it focuses on one of Niebuhr's earliest books - written when he was struggling with his own residual pacifism and "marxianism" - misrepresents the totality of Niebuhr's message.
Well, I didn't want to wander off into The Nature and Destiny of Man.
Trying to remain philosophical here, not drag this into theological territory (which is my base, but not my sole playing field, also).
When I read crap like David Brooks' recent invocation of Niebuhr against opponents of the war in Iraq, I cringe at the dishonest pimping of a complex pragmatic Christian who would have found a political landscape in which even Democrats are afraid to proudly call themselves liberals and the projection of American power is crassly put forward as a legitimate end in itself. Agreed. And would say "Sorry I missed that from Brooks," except I'm not.
Brooks thinks in thimbles. Niebuhr (which was my intention in bringing him to this blog) thought in gallons and even acre-feet. If that metaphor even has any meaning.
Maybe "pandering" is a strong word, but why else all this yammer about Democrats and "values" since the election?
The only ones crying about "morals" are the GOP whores, and fundies. We just don't share the same beliefs, how in the hell are we going to invite people into our party that are pro-life? The democratic party is a party of pro-choice, this issue alone would make it impossible to join the two. Get it?
Maybe "pandering" is a strong word, but why else all this yammer about Democrats and "values" since the election?
The only ones crying about "morals" are the GOP whores, and fundies. We just don't share the same beliefs, how in the hell are we going to invite people into our party that are pro-life? The democratic party is a party of pro-choice, this issue alone would make it impossible to join the two. Get it?
Lots and lots of bankruptcy in the next year.
Dawna
No way. The cost of exports is now cheap. If you have goods or services, market overseas and you'll make a bundle. Market to Canada under NAFTA or Europe under GATT.
Come on folks, where's the entrprenurial spirit?
Lots and lots of bankruptcy in the next year.
Dawna
No way. The cost of exports is now cheap. If you have goods or services, market overseas and you'll make a bundle. Market to Canada under NAFTA or Europe under GATT.
Come on folks, where's the entrprenurial spirit?
As the rich get richer, so does the vaunted middle class you try to hold up as the ideal.
Course, you know this is a lie. For the last three years, the number of people living in poverty has grown. As the rich have gotten much richer. But keep on drinking the kool-aide Mr. Church of God.
As the rich get richer, so does the vaunted middle class you try to hold up as the ideal.
Course, you know this is a lie. For the last three years, the number of people living in poverty has grown. As the rich have gotten much richer. But keep on drinking the kool-aide Mr. Church of God.
United States of Achievement.
How do you create the atmosphere for this? Buy supporting small business and small communities.
Otherwise you get water depths at different levels, like in a set of waterway locks. This is what is happening right now.
United States of Achievement.
How do you create the atmosphere for this? Buy supporting small business and small communities.
Otherwise you get water depths at different levels, like in a set of waterway locks. This is what is happening right now.
I’d burn her like a witch but I am afraid of the fumes.
I’d burn her like a witch but I am afraid of the fumes.
buy=by
oops
buy=by
oops
Brooks thinks in thimbles.
Robert M. Jeffers,
That's good. Can I use it?
Brooks thinks in thimbles.
Robert M. Jeffers,
That's good. Can I use it?
I'm not being a girlie-man. It's an interesting question.
Why is consumer confidence so good?
I wonder if China and Russia and Japan will wait until after Christmas before they really start reducing their dollar holdings. I hear it's already happening, but at a very small pace.
Look, as the dollar declines, that provides us opportunity to ramp exports and reap big rewards. Even small business can get into the game. With the Web, some marketing savvy, its advantage USA to those who choose to take advantage of Asian and European markets.
I'm not being a girlie-man. It's an interesting question.
Why is consumer confidence so good?
I wonder if China and Russia and Japan will wait until after Christmas before they really start reducing their dollar holdings. I hear it's already happening, but at a very small pace.
Look, as the dollar declines, that provides us opportunity to ramp exports and reap big rewards. Even small business can get into the game. With the Web, some marketing savvy, its advantage USA to those who choose to take advantage of Asian and European markets.
That's good. Can I use it?
Of course. What's here is for public use, far as I'm concerned.
That's good. Can I use it?
Of course. What's here is for public use, far as I'm concerned.
Floats all boats with the rising tide.
Mkay.
Explain that 26% loss on the dollar since Gee.W. took office. How about the economic trade sanctions the WTO just placed on the US - which our government had to accept?
Keep drinkin that kool-aid Son. It'll get better for ya.
Like my Mom always said - wish in one hand and shit in the other.
See which one fills up first.
Floats all boats with the rising tide.
Mkay.
Explain that 26% loss on the dollar since Gee.W. took office. How about the economic trade sanctions the WTO just placed on the US - which our government had to accept?
Keep drinkin that kool-aid Son. It'll get better for ya.
Like my Mom always said - wish in one hand and shit in the other.
See which one fills up first.
Mike, it also encourages China to stop funding our worthless dollar.
Mike, it also encourages China to stop funding our worthless dollar.
Come on folks, where's the entrprenurial spirit?
Mike | Email | Homepage | 11.27.04 - 1:59 pm
In China, along with most of our debt? You have to be deluded. What are you gonna export? The US no longer has major manufacturing capacity for the sorts of things within the range or on the scale of entrepeneurs can afford to promote.
The US is a net-importer of everything except debt. Haven't yuou been paying attention for the past 4 fucking years???
Come on folks, where's the entrprenurial spirit?
Mike | Email | Homepage | 11.27.04 - 1:59 pm
In China, along with most of our debt? You have to be deluded. What are you gonna export? The US no longer has major manufacturing capacity for the sorts of things within the range or on the scale of entrepeneurs can afford to promote.
The US is a net-importer of everything except debt. Haven't yuou been paying attention for the past 4 fucking years???
Course, you know this is a lie. For the last three years, the number of people living in poverty has grown. As the rich have gotten much richer. But keep on drinking the kool-aide Mr. Church of God.
I am not drinking any koolade. Facts are facts. This is a global economy. There are international trade treaties in place that protect business. People are waiting for a handout, and thats the wrong attitude. Use GATT and NAFTA to your advantage.
BTW, what's with the Church-of-God stuff?
Course, you know this is a lie. For the last three years, the number of people living in poverty has grown. As the rich have gotten much richer. But keep on drinking the kool-aide Mr. Church of God.
I am not drinking any koolade. Facts are facts. This is a global economy. There are international trade treaties in place that protect business. People are waiting for a handout, and thats the wrong attitude. Use GATT and NAFTA to your advantage.
BTW, what's with the Church-of-God stuff?
Man gets on a bus, smiles at the bus driver and wishes him a good day. Bus driver, surprised, smiles back and is still smiling as woman enters the bus. She smiles back and they both wish each other a good day. Woman, her mood improved, happily gives her seat up to elderly man who smiles and thanks her for her thoughtfulness. And on and on ------ voila; the world becomes a happier place because of the small actions of one man.
It's corny but simple.
In the Tao Te Ching there is example after example that illustrates that the master never demands the right to lead (change society). He becomes a "leader" by showing himself worthy of being followed. You can't horse collar "society" and change it for the better. The idea is to strive for self perfection (not in some obsessive compulsive way), so you will be a living example for those that you meet of a virtuous way to live. When people observe your happy and well adjusted state they will then naturally want to imitate you and in this way the world is changed for the better.
Man gets on a bus, smiles at the bus driver and wishes him a good day. Bus driver, surprised, smiles back and is still smiling as woman enters the bus. She smiles back and they both wish each other a good day. Woman, her mood improved, happily gives her seat up to elderly man who smiles and thanks her for her thoughtfulness. And on and on ------ voila; the world becomes a happier place because of the small actions of one man.
It's corny but simple.
In the Tao Te Ching there is example after example that illustrates that the master never demands the right to lead (change society). He becomes a "leader" by showing himself worthy of being followed. You can't horse collar "society" and change it for the better. The idea is to strive for self perfection (not in some obsessive compulsive way), so you will be a living example for those that you meet of a virtuous way to live. When people observe your happy and well adjusted state they will then naturally want to imitate you and in this way the world is changed for the better.
I hear they opened a wal-mart in china. I can imagine the people who shop there... "Hey I just made that yesterday!"
I hear they opened a wal-mart in china. I can imagine the people who shop there... "Hey I just made that yesterday!"
And next year for the FIRST TIME (as I posted earlier in another thread) -
we'll be an importer of agricultural goods.
Cheaper to buy and ship them from other nations than to pay our farmers what they really are worth.
Yeah, that makes sense. Profit over everything, especially those who produce your food.
And next year for the FIRST TIME (as I posted earlier in another thread) -
we'll be an importer of agricultural goods.
Cheaper to buy and ship them from other nations than to pay our farmers what they really are worth.
Yeah, that makes sense. Profit over everything, especially those who produce your food.
Hecate sez:
Now explain again to me how it's the Democrats who are intrusive?
Because we're gonna force EVERYONE to believe in our Bible.
.
Hecate sez:
Now explain again to me how it's the Democrats who are intrusive?
Because we're gonna force EVERYONE to believe in our Bible.
.
In China, along with most of our debt? You have to be deluded. What are you gonna export? The US no longer has major manufacturing capacity for the sorts of things within the range or on the scale of entrepeneurs can afford to promote.
This is a myth. Manufacturing moves to wherever it wants per GATT and NAFTA. If its cheaper to do it here, business will do it here. And with the decline in the dollar it will be cheaper to do it here.
In China, along with most of our debt? You have to be deluded. What are you gonna export? The US no longer has major manufacturing capacity for the sorts of things within the range or on the scale of entrepeneurs can afford to promote.
This is a myth. Manufacturing moves to wherever it wants per GATT and NAFTA. If its cheaper to do it here, business will do it here. And with the decline in the dollar it will be cheaper to do it here.
RMJ:
as one who has known acre-feet from the soles of my feet, mad props for your metaphorical comparison: Thimbles to acre-feet indeed...
RMJ:
as one who has known acre-feet from the soles of my feet, mad props for your metaphorical comparison: Thimbles to acre-feet indeed...
Walmart is also allowing China to unionize their stores.
Walmart is also allowing China to unionize their stores.
I disagree Mike,
I freelance for Rayovac. As it is we have everything made in China.
What happens when we have to pay for higher priced products from China because of the falling dollar price?
Inflation.
I disagree Mike,
I freelance for Rayovac. As it is we have everything made in China.
What happens when we have to pay for higher priced products from China because of the falling dollar price?
Inflation.
And with the decline in the dollar it will be cheaper to do it here.
Mike | Email | Homepage | 11.27.04 - 2:07 pm
averaging down was always the purpose behind NAFTA; lowering our/your standard of living sufficiently to permit competition...how low can you go, mikey?
And with the decline in the dollar it will be cheaper to do it here.
Mike | Email | Homepage | 11.27.04 - 2:07 pm
averaging down was always the purpose behind NAFTA; lowering our/your standard of living sufficiently to permit competition...how low can you go, mikey?
And if we get too competative in manufacturing here in the US with China. Well, the corps. will find another nation will a low valued currency and move their.
Again this speak to Corp. Personhood being on the same level of Human Personhood. NOT a good thing.
And if we get too competative in manufacturing here in the US with China. Well, the corps. will find another nation will a low valued currency and move their.
Again this speak to Corp. Personhood being on the same level of Human Personhood. NOT a good thing.
I wonder what Mike's lotto ticket to financial security is tonight?
I wonder what Mike's lotto ticket to financial security is tonight?
Mike....personal bankruptcies will skyrocket in the next three years. The wealth of the average american during the Bush first term was derived totally from new debt based on inflated housing prices and refinancing in order to take cash out of the inflated balloon. That does not last for ever. Job or wage growth have had no part of personal
economic security the past four years. I have not read any economic forecast that indicates this is going to improve.
Mike....personal bankruptcies will skyrocket in the next three years. The wealth of the average american during the Bush first term was derived totally from new debt based on inflated housing prices and refinancing in order to take cash out of the inflated balloon. That does not last for ever. Job or wage growth have had no part of personal
economic security the past four years. I have not read any economic forecast that indicates this is going to improve.
I plan on setting a new world speed record for Monopoly one of these days... It's called we sit down, setup the game, I pull a gun and go "look bitches, give me all your money and nobody gets hurt!" Then I take the thimble hostage at the Water Works and force everyone to surrender to me, then I win the game.
I plan on setting a new world speed record for Monopoly one of these days... It's called we sit down, setup the game, I pull a gun and go "look bitches, give me all your money and nobody gets hurt!" Then I take the thimble hostage at the Water Works and force everyone to surrender to me, then I win the game.
Tom | Email | Homepage | 11.27.04 - 2:05 pm
I've always tried to live by the adage:
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make 'em surf...
Tom | Email | Homepage | 11.27.04 - 2:05 pm
I've always tried to live by the adage:
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make 'em surf...
It can only ask for sacrifices that protect the society at large, not sacrifices that preserve a moral ideal.
Lost power the first time through this, so I'll try to be succinct.
Seems to me like Bush and his crew are a walking disproof of this argument, although I'm not hopeful of being able to convince anyone who disagrees.
It's clear that moral campaigns can change the world. We've seen that, in our own country, in our own time. Many of the things we would like to change about our country are the result of what most of us would consider perverted moral crusades.
The conflict we seem at the moment to be losing ia a battle over moral priorities. Although many of our arguments begin (and some even end!) by demonizing the opposition, in the end they boil down to "our moral priorities are better than yours, nyah nyah", because most of the opposition's ends, as opposed to their means, are not in and of themseves bad things. Ultimately, we (most of us, anyway) are unable to effectively argue against the opposition's goals, or the moral authority on whose behalf they presume to speak, because we share those goals and values, and profess to submit to the same authority.
Unfortunately for us, piety, orthodoxy, sexual mores, and evangelism always seem to trump charity, tolerance. peace, and mutual respect. The code of morality that has been handed down to us over the centuries is unfortunately so complete in detail that, short of economic catastrophe, I believe tactics of morality are doomed to continue to lose to the demagogues of the right.
So I think we should refocus our efforts. Rather than continuing to allow our efforts to be diluted by argument over moral priorities, we should focus on identifying, castigating, and rooting out ignorance, stupidity, superstition, and prejudice, and making pragmatic arguments for progressive policies not because they are morally right, but because they achieve socially desirable objectives.
It can only ask for sacrifices that protect the society at large, not sacrifices that preserve a moral ideal.
Lost power the first time through this, so I'll try to be succinct.
Seems to me like Bush and his crew are a walking disproof of this argument, although I'm not hopeful of being able to convince anyone who disagrees.
It's clear that moral campaigns can change the world. We've seen that, in our own country, in our own time. Many of the things we would like to change about our country are the result of what most of us would consider perverted moral crusades.
The conflict we seem at the moment to be losing ia a battle over moral priorities. Although many of our arguments begin (and some even end!) by demonizing the opposition, in the end they boil down to "our moral priorities are better than yours, nyah nyah", because most of the opposition's ends, as opposed to their means, are not in and of themseves bad things. Ultimately, we (most of us, anyway) are unable to effectively argue against the opposition's goals, or the moral authority on whose behalf they presume to speak, because we share those goals and values, and profess to submit to the same authority.
Unfortunately for us, piety, orthodoxy, sexual mores, and evangelism always seem to trump charity, tolerance. peace, and mutual respect. The code of morality that has been handed down to us over the centuries is unfortunately so complete in detail that, short of economic catastrophe, I believe tactics of morality are doomed to continue to lose to the demagogues of the right.
So I think we should refocus our efforts. Rather than continuing to allow our efforts to be diluted by argument over moral priorities, we should focus on identifying, castigating, and rooting out ignorance, stupidity, superstition, and prejudice, and making pragmatic arguments for progressive policies not because they are morally right, but because they achieve socially desirable objectives.
"Why is consumer confidence so good?"
Why do Powerball tickets with 1 in 120 million odds sell so well?
Why are Las Vegas casinos doing so well?
Why does Brittney Spears have a career?
Why do people drink Coors Light?
Why does anyone believe George Bush?
You know the answer.
"Why is consumer confidence so good?"
Why do Powerball tickets with 1 in 120 million odds sell so well?
Why are Las Vegas casinos doing so well?
Why does Brittney Spears have a career?
Why do people drink Coors Light?
Why does anyone believe George Bush?
You know the answer.
RMJ - I'm not intellectually intimate with Niebuhr. Know of him mostly through my dad, who was. My reaction was that by posing the philosophical issues that he wrestled with without the context in which he was facing them down, it could lead someone who knew even less about him than I do that he was an apologist for conservatism rather than an activist liberal who believed strongly in an essentially social democratic politics. While I'm not competent to do it, I think that John Dewey's secular pragmatism would be something to consider as parallel to Niebuhr's Christianity. But both of these guys were thinking their thoughts in relation to some very specific historical situations and political trends, which makes at least a bit of extraction and contextualization necessary for contemporary liberals who are dealing with a vastly different landscape.
RMJ - I'm not intellectually intimate with Niebuhr. Know of him mostly through my dad, who was. My reaction was that by posing the philosophical issues that he wrestled with without the context in which he was facing them down, it could lead someone who knew even less about him than I do that he was an apologist for conservatism rather than an activist liberal who believed strongly in an essentially social democratic politics. While I'm not competent to do it, I think that John Dewey's secular pragmatism would be something to consider as parallel to Niebuhr's Christianity. But both of these guys were thinking their thoughts in relation to some very specific historical situations and political trends, which makes at least a bit of extraction and contextualization necessary for contemporary liberals who are dealing with a vastly different landscape.
WTF? If you DON'T engage in the "values" argument, then you cede it.
As I tried to point out in my previous posts, there's no need to avoid the "values" argument. Doing so is what has allowed the pukes to frame "values" as being strictly about gays and abortions.
Values, and particularly the ones that government CAN really impact, are about a whole lot more than gays and abortion (neither of which the govt. will ever be able to stop); they are about fairness and justice. But you'll never get that point across if you just decide to sit out any and all discussions about values.
WTF? If you DON'T engage in the "values" argument, then you cede it.
As I tried to point out in my previous posts, there's no need to avoid the "values" argument. Doing so is what has allowed the pukes to frame "values" as being strictly about gays and abortions.
Values, and particularly the ones that government CAN really impact, are about a whole lot more than gays and abortion (neither of which the govt. will ever be able to stop); they are about fairness and justice. But you'll never get that point across if you just decide to sit out any and all discussions about values.
Mike's one of the folks who have to believe the fantasy to preserve their sanity. If he were actually to become convinced that his 'truths' were all the carefully constructed propagandas by which he voluntarily remained enslaved, his head would explode from the divisive pressures of that much released cognitive dissonance...
Mike's one of the folks who have to believe the fantasy to preserve their sanity. If he were actually to become convinced that his 'truths' were all the carefully constructed propagandas by which he voluntarily remained enslaved, his head would explode from the divisive pressures of that much released cognitive dissonance...
my letter to arnold: your promise to investigate yourself after the election was a sham and you've misrepresented fact after fact...this is not honorable and the statement that you would not accept moneies from business was also a lie
and without honor...your support for the war mongering bush is also
not representive of Californian Values...if you really want to be an American and not a puppet for the corperations and big cash donors you
have many chances to do so...ignoring the long fought for and needed
protections for the Natural Resources of California, by endorsing the destructive policy of bush only proves that you are nothing more than a puppet figurehead for the same thieves and scoundrels stealing the
future from our children and grandchildren for generations to come...
the putting of your name ABOVE the title Governor outside your office
shows by example your true feelings, you think you're above others as
an office holder...IF YOU REALLY WANT TO BE REMEMBERED AS MORE THAN A
COMMON POL HACK YOU NEED TO GO AMONG THE CITIZENS AND FIND OUT WHAT REALLY SERVES THE PUBLIC, NOT THE COUNSEL OF A SMALL PORTION OF THE
REPUBLICAN PARTY...the phoney smiles and platitudes of campaign nonsense
don't add up to any honorable history but show the real arnold for what you are, a phoney creep that lied your way into the office you do not deserve...you will never be the President.
my letter to arnold: your promise to investigate yourself after the election was a sham and you've misrepresented fact after fact...this is not honorable and the statement that you would not accept moneies from business was also a lie
and without honor...your support for the war mongering bush is also
not representive of Californian Values...if you really want to be an American and not a puppet for the corperations and big cash donors you
have many chances to do so...ignoring the long fought for and needed
protections for the Natural Resources of California, by endorsing the destructive policy of bush only proves that you are nothing more than a puppet figurehead for the same thieves and scoundrels stealing the
future from our children and grandchildren for generations to come...
the putting of your name ABOVE the title Governor outside your office
shows by example your true feelings, you think you're above others as
an office holder...IF YOU REALLY WANT TO BE REMEMBERED AS MORE THAN A
COMMON POL HACK YOU NEED TO GO AMONG THE CITIZENS AND FIND OUT WHAT REALLY SERVES THE PUBLIC, NOT THE COUNSEL OF A SMALL PORTION OF THE
REPUBLICAN PARTY...the phoney smiles and platitudes of campaign nonsense
don't add up to any honorable history but show the real arnold for what you are, a phoney creep that lied your way into the office you do not deserve...you will never be the President.
BTW, what's with the Church-of-God stuff?
Oh, let's not play coy, shall we? It's not as if you haven't trolled these waters before, sweetie.
BTW, what's with the Church-of-God stuff?
Oh, let's not play coy, shall we? It's not as if you haven't trolled these waters before, sweetie.
Tom, good point.
Tom, good point.
Infinite gratitude to da trufe for his scholarship in pointing to the secular influence in our nations foundation. However, I must object to lumping all religion together.
I feel religion (a social construct) has a legitimate function as a support for facilitating spiritual, or if you will, moral development (a matter of personal effort). The problem with western religion in its various, purportedly mono-theistic, forms is its reliance upon the individual's submission to divine authority as revealed through scripture and its elite interpretation, whether by priests, rabbis, ministers, shieks, or imams. Particularily problematic is the bifurcation of the western mindset into mutually untenable scientific and metaphysical viewpoints.
Infinite gratitude to da trufe for his scholarship in pointing to the secular influence in our nations foundation. However, I must object to lumping all religion together.
I feel religion (a social construct) has a legitimate function as a support for facilitating spiritual, or if you will, moral development (a matter of personal effort). The problem with western religion in its various, purportedly mono-theistic, forms is its reliance upon the individual's submission to divine authority as revealed through scripture and its elite interpretation, whether by priests, rabbis, ministers, shieks, or imams. Particularily problematic is the bifurcation of the western mindset into mutually untenable scientific and metaphysical viewpoints.
Mike, in a way I admire your optimism but it seems to be tinged with a sort of blind faith in the US market that reminds me of fundamentalism.
It is an old cliche that only in American can the common man rise above his surroundings and break into the middle or upper class. I understand that recent studies have shown that this is becoming less and less true here. People born poor tend to stay poor. There are many rags to riches stories but these occurr in other countries as well. The current President of Peru is a former shoe shine boy - beat that. I understand that many nations are currently doing better than we are at breaking generation to generation poverty.
On the dollar, focusing on the positive effect of a cheaper dollar vis a vis exports while ignoring the downside is convenient but dishonest. Foreigners are bankrolling our economy and they stand to lose by a falling dollar. This will naturally make them less and less willing to invest in "the good ol' USA." Consequences could be disasterous.
Mike, in a way I admire your optimism but it seems to be tinged with a sort of blind faith in the US market that reminds me of fundamentalism.
It is an old cliche that only in American can the common man rise above his surroundings and break into the middle or upper class. I understand that recent studies have shown that this is becoming less and less true here. People born poor tend to stay poor. There are many rags to riches stories but these occurr in other countries as well. The current President of Peru is a former shoe shine boy - beat that. I understand that many nations are currently doing better than we are at breaking generation to generation poverty.
On the dollar, focusing on the positive effect of a cheaper dollar vis a vis exports while ignoring the downside is convenient but dishonest. Foreigners are bankrolling our economy and they stand to lose by a falling dollar. This will naturally make them less and less willing to invest in "the good ol' USA." Consequences could be disasterous.
tom, good points, good examples...
brucds, well said...context is everything...interesting how, now, it is possible to view traditionally philosophically Liberal Niehbur as 'conservative,' and what that really does say about the shift in the political landscape over the past 40 years...about what is implied about the limits of that apparent duality...
tom, good points, good examples...
brucds, well said...context is everything...interesting how, now, it is possible to view traditionally philosophically Liberal Niehbur as 'conservative,' and what that really does say about the shift in the political landscape over the past 40 years...about what is implied about the limits of that apparent duality...
Pagan pacman goes WICCA WICCA WICCA WICCA
Pagan pacman goes WICCA WICCA WICCA WICCA
da trufe - You think I"m gay? That's a first.
LOL.
da trufe - You think I"m gay? That's a first.
LOL.
Several people have commented that the whole "values" thing is capitulation to the right.
I don't accept that. Much of the source of opposition to Bush comes from the opposition to the invasion of Iraq. This is a moral issue for us. Our values tell us that mass murder, even when conducted in an area of strategic importance to our society is wrong. It seems that the cheerleaders for the war feel that as long as we hide the images of slaughter it isn't really happening. This is a difference in values between us and them. I do not accept that I am capitulating to the xtianization of America movement to argue in moral terms for the cessation of this outrageous crime against humanity.
Several people have commented that the whole "values" thing is capitulation to the right.
I don't accept that. Much of the source of opposition to Bush comes from the opposition to the invasion of Iraq. This is a moral issue for us. Our values tell us that mass murder, even when conducted in an area of strategic importance to our society is wrong. It seems that the cheerleaders for the war feel that as long as we hide the images of slaughter it isn't really happening. This is a difference in values between us and them. I do not accept that I am capitulating to the xtianization of America movement to argue in moral terms for the cessation of this outrageous crime against humanity.
On the dollar, focusing on the positive effect of a cheaper dollar vis a vis exports while ignoring the downside is convenient but dishonest. Foreigners are bankrolling our economy and they stand to lose by a falling dollar. This will naturally make them less and less willing to invest in "the good ol' USA." Consequences could be disasterous.
But that's the old model, pre-NAFTA and pre-GATT. You are correct in you assertion that eonomies are, in fact, tied together like never before in history. Therefore, comparisions to situations like Argentina and Germany are disingenious IMO.
Foreign investors have a vested interest in keeping the US going in the same manner that the US has a vested interest in keeping Europe and Asia going.
Now, that's not to say there won't be hardship, that is entirely likely to be sure. However, the sky is not falling. The USA can withstand a shakeout, and those companies and consumers living beyond their means will feel the pinch. But, the effect will be lower wages and lower cost of business, which means a migration back to the US for manufacturing.
On the dollar, focusing on the positive effect of a cheaper dollar vis a vis exports while ignoring the downside is convenient but dishonest. Foreigners are bankrolling our economy and they stand to lose by a falling dollar. This will naturally make them less and less willing to invest in "the good ol' USA." Consequences could be disasterous.
But that's the old model, pre-NAFTA and pre-GATT. You are correct in you assertion that eonomies are, in fact, tied together like never before in history. Therefore, comparisions to situations like Argentina and Germany are disingenious IMO.
Foreign investors have a vested interest in keeping the US going in the same manner that the US has a vested interest in keeping Europe and Asia going.
Now, that's not to say there won't be hardship, that is entirely likely to be sure. However, the sky is not falling. The USA can withstand a shakeout, and those companies and consumers living beyond their means will feel the pinch. But, the effect will be lower wages and lower cost of business, which means a migration back to the US for manufacturing.
WTF? If you DON'T engage in the "values" argument, then you cede it.
Yes.
I can't argue whether or not Yahweh demands that homosexuals be put to death; clearly he does.
What I can do is point out the literary context in which the demand is made, make the case that Yahweh is a literary figure rather than a reality we need take into account today, and raise the broader question of why we should take the ancient mythology of the Hebrews any more seriously than we do that of any other ancient culture.
WTF? If you DON'T engage in the "values" argument, then you cede it.
Yes.
I can't argue whether or not Yahweh demands that homosexuals be put to death; clearly he does.
What I can do is point out the literary context in which the demand is made, make the case that Yahweh is a literary figure rather than a reality we need take into account today, and raise the broader question of why we should take the ancient mythology of the Hebrews any more seriously than we do that of any other ancient culture.
Much of the source of opposition to Bush comes from the opposition to the invasion of Iraq. This is a moral issue for us. Our values tell us that mass murder, even when conducted in an area of strategic importance to our society is wrong.
I agree wholehearthedly, with perhaps a minor caveat. I believe Iraq is about economics. Hussien was going to peg Iraqi oil to the Euro, which would have moved Opec in the same direction.
Bush's problem now is that he needs to stabilize Iraq so that it can be a competitive wedge in the oil markets. However he strategically blew it by not sending in enough manpower to begin with, and by not leveling with Americans on the real reason for the invasion.
But what's done is done, and know he needs to get that country stable pronto. That's the real reason for doubts about the dollar- where be Iraq in one year or five?
Much of the source of opposition to Bush comes from the opposition to the invasion of Iraq. This is a moral issue for us. Our values tell us that mass murder, even when conducted in an area of strategic importance to our society is wrong.
I agree wholehearthedly, with perhaps a minor caveat. I believe Iraq is about economics. Hussien was going to peg Iraqi oil to the Euro, which would have moved Opec in the same direction.
Bush's problem now is that he needs to stabilize Iraq so that it can be a competitive wedge in the oil markets. However he strategically blew it by not sending in enough manpower to begin with, and by not leveling with Americans on the real reason for the invasion.
But what's done is done, and know he needs to get that country stable pronto. That's the real reason for doubts about the dollar- where be Iraq in one year or five?
Now, that's not to say there won't be hardship, that is entirely likely to be sure.
At least for everyone but George Bush.
Now, that's not to say there won't be hardship, that is entirely likely to be sure.
At least for everyone but George Bush.
brucds--
You're right, of course. I'm just trying to supply a springboard to conversation (something I tend to do with a far too heavy philosophical hand). Niebuhr's MOral Man no more represents the fullness of his thought, of course, than the "Serenity Prayer" does.
And my favorite story about the latter is that, after he used it in a worship service, he told someone who asked for it to take it, he had no further use for it.
Which says a lot about the depth and character of his thought. David Brooks, to pick on someone, would stop with the prayer and praise it to the skies. Niebuhrs sloughs it off in passing, moving on to more important and salient matters.
Still, you are right. Context is everything.
brucds--
You're right, of course. I'm just trying to supply a springboard to conversation (something I tend to do with a far too heavy philosophical hand). Niebuhr's MOral Man no more represents the fullness of his thought, of course, than the "Serenity Prayer" does.
And my favorite story about the latter is that, after he used it in a worship service, he told someone who asked for it to take it, he had no further use for it.
Which says a lot about the depth and character of his thought. David Brooks, to pick on someone, would stop with the prayer and praise it to the skies. Niebuhrs sloughs it off in passing, moving on to more important and salient matters.
Still, you are right. Context is everything.
Jesus was not a socialist, I'm afraid.
It is undeniable that the earliest Christians held all in common, it says so in the only records we have. And the Christian churches forbade usury, the very basis of capitalism, for most if their existence. It was Calvin who went in for usury in a big way, if memory serves. Calvin was not Jesus.
Jesus was more radical than socialist. He told his followers to give all they had to the poor, that the rich were damned for their lack of charity. He told preachers to carry no money or extra clothes with them. To rely on the charity of strangers. Fat chance you'll see any of that in the "christian" churches any time soon.
Jesus was not a socialist, I'm afraid.
It is undeniable that the earliest Christians held all in common, it says so in the only records we have. And the Christian churches forbade usury, the very basis of capitalism, for most if their existence. It was Calvin who went in for usury in a big way, if memory serves. Calvin was not Jesus.
Jesus was more radical than socialist. He told his followers to give all they had to the poor, that the rich were damned for their lack of charity. He told preachers to carry no money or extra clothes with them. To rely on the charity of strangers. Fat chance you'll see any of that in the "christian" churches any time soon.
Robert, you're doing fine here!
Interesting thread. Kids, don't be so quick to call each other trolls. There are some real ones, but I've seen good points made by both sides.
Over the years I've had it said to me by many Wrepublicans, social climbers, and desperate wanna bees that "if you/they're/he/she/it's so smart, why aren't (insert pronoun) rich?
The American Dream.
After all, most folks are Xtians 'cause it's the best deal in town.
But be a member of the upper class? Wouldya Couldya?
There are better things to want, there is real Power out there, and I think the whole American Dream is a heavily promoted delusion to keep everybody from grasping reality and changing the world.
Robert, you're doing fine here!
Interesting thread. Kids, don't be so quick to call each other trolls. There are some real ones, but I've seen good points made by both sides.
Over the years I've had it said to me by many Wrepublicans, social climbers, and desperate wanna bees that "if you/they're/he/she/it's so smart, why aren't (insert pronoun) rich?
The American Dream.
After all, most folks are Xtians 'cause it's the best deal in town.
But be a member of the upper class? Wouldya Couldya?
There are better things to want, there is real Power out there, and I think the whole American Dream is a heavily promoted delusion to keep everybody from grasping reality and changing the world.
Mike's one of the folks who have to believe the fantasy to preserve their sanity. If he were actually to become convinced that his 'truths' were all the carefully constructed propagandas by which he voluntarily remained enslaved, his head would explode from the divisive pressures of that much released cognitive dissonance...
No, not correct. I'm not here preaching values (although I do think more structure and values learning in schools are a good thing, and if its prayer, then why not try it), nor am I pretending that Iraq is not about oil and world markets and US dominance therein. However, to believe that the dollar is sinking because of US debt is only partially true. The real reason for the decline is world markets doubts about our ability to secure Iraq and by extension, the middle east.
World markets are fueled by oil. If we do not stabilize Iraq, Opec will peg oil to the Euro.
That's Bush's immediate problem. He has to get Iraq stabilized quickly.
Mike's one of the folks who have to believe the fantasy to preserve their sanity. If he were actually to become convinced that his 'truths' were all the carefully constructed propagandas by which he voluntarily remained enslaved, his head would explode from the divisive pressures of that much released cognitive dissonance...
No, not correct. I'm not here preaching values (although I do think more structure and values learning in schools are a good thing, and if its prayer, then why not try it), nor am I pretending that Iraq is not about oil and world markets and US dominance therein. However, to believe that the dollar is sinking because of US debt is only partially true. The real reason for the decline is world markets doubts about our ability to secure Iraq and by extension, the middle east.
World markets are fueled by oil. If we do not stabilize Iraq, Opec will peg oil to the Euro.
That's Bush's immediate problem. He has to get Iraq stabilized quickly.
I would quote Lennon and say "Imagine there's no countries."
Isn't that what mystics of various religions try to point out? That we are all connected? So there is no "our society" vs. "their society?"
I would quote Lennon and say "Imagine there's no countries."
Isn't that what mystics of various religions try to point out? That we are all connected? So there is no "our society" vs. "their society?"
At least for everyone but George Bush.
Come on, that's an all or nothing statement. Let's say Gore had been Prez the past four years. What would he do if Hussien ramped up oil production, pegged it against the Euro, and caused Opec to follow suit? That would have made the dollar sink like a rock.
Bush's screw up was not leveling with America on the why in Iraq and the how. But that is now a problem he needs to fix. But Iraq was something that had to be dealt with for a stable economy. You can argue the merits of Bush's execution of the Iraq stategy, but to claim its all about Bush's wallet is not correct IMO.
At least for everyone but George Bush.
Come on, that's an all or nothing statement. Let's say Gore had been Prez the past four years. What would he do if Hussien ramped up oil production, pegged it against the Euro, and caused Opec to follow suit? That would have made the dollar sink like a rock.
Bush's screw up was not leveling with America on the why in Iraq and the how. But that is now a problem he needs to fix. But Iraq was something that had to be dealt with for a stable economy. You can argue the merits of Bush's execution of the Iraq stategy, but to claim its all about Bush's wallet is not correct IMO.
Robert:
You said in another thread that you spend around $200 for thyroid/cholesterol tests. FYI: I go to the Red Cross for the exact same tests every six months and they charge me $65.
Robert:
You said in another thread that you spend around $200 for thyroid/cholesterol tests. FYI: I go to the Red Cross for the exact same tests every six months and they charge me $65.
RMJ - thanks for bringing Niebuhr into discussion as a relevant figure. I intend to dig into one of his books soon. I've been thinking recently that one of the things that would make sense for liberals in trying to frame their politics would be to generate an "intellectual pantheon" of thinkers who are philosophically serious as an alternative to the influence of constant carping and perpetual criticism of the Noam Chomskys who currently influence what passes for "the left". Make active discourse and discussion around the philosophical and moral foundations of liberalism a more central and common feature of our poliical conversations and practice. This could add some "beef" to the "values debate" that would go deeper than creating some new liberal camouflage for the next electoral cycle. Basically I'm suggesting spending some time and energy on fundamental intellectual work that would focus and articulate our philosophical roots as liberals/social democrats/etc. Create some forums for this, periodically do it on weblogs, have some "bookclub" type activities, etc. Devote more space to this discussion in liberal journals. Is this too boring, or is it essential if we're going to have a cohesive, serious alternative to the current madness ?
ALSO, in the course of giving context to Niebuhr, one should note that he was one of Martin Luther King's primary theological influences. Who's example might be a place to start when considering the challenge of "change oneself / change society" .
RMJ - thanks for bringing Niebuhr into discussion as a relevant figure. I intend to dig into one of his books soon. I've been thinking recently that one of the things that would make sense for liberals in trying to frame their politics would be to generate an "intellectual pantheon" of thinkers who are philosophically serious as an alternative to the influence of constant carping and perpetual criticism of the Noam Chomskys who currently influence what passes for "the left". Make active discourse and discussion around the philosophical and moral foundations of liberalism a more central and common feature of our poliical conversations and practice. This could add some "beef" to the "values debate" that would go deeper than creating some new liberal camouflage for the next electoral cycle. Basically I'm suggesting spending some time and energy on fundamental intellectual work that would focus and articulate our philosophical roots as liberals/social democrats/etc. Create some forums for this, periodically do it on weblogs, have some "bookclub" type activities, etc. Devote more space to this discussion in liberal journals. Is this too boring, or is it essential if we're going to have a cohesive, serious alternative to the current madness ?
ALSO, in the course of giving context to Niebuhr, one should note that he was one of Martin Luther King's primary theological influences. Who's example might be a place to start when considering the challenge of "change oneself / change society" .
I disagree with some of what you say, Mike.
You want to know the real problem that has Bu$hCo in Iraq and Carlyle owning both the Wrepublican and Democrat parties?
You really interested?
Here it is.
I am really glad they got this back on line.
Iraq- and the whole NeoCon imperialist schtick- is about oil and power.
If the Wrepublicans hold on for a few years, the lack of cheap energy sources will send most of the world back to a preindustrial state.
And re-establish feudal aristocracy as the mode of government for the serfs that can't afford anything else.
In fact, the Saudi's are counting on it.
It's why they don't want cheap alternative energy.
Why do voters in the Ukraine organize against the Russian attempt to steal their election?
Do you really believe their patriotism alone does it? Without outside aid? Without the CIA making moves there against Putin's NeoKGB?
The Great Game is back in play. It's why Condi Rice is Secretary of State. It's Bigger and Better and run with the help of the So Called Liberal Media. And the AEI. And Wall Street. And Carlyle.
The players are rather disorganized and fractious and climbing all over each other- but follow the money, people.
The truth is out there.
But once again, there is power, and there is Power, and one does not imply the other.
I disagree with some of what you say, Mike.
You want to know the real problem that has Bu$hCo in Iraq and Carlyle owning both the Wrepublican and Democrat parties?
You really interested?
Here it is.
I am really glad they got this back on line.
Iraq- and the whole NeoCon imperialist schtick- is about oil and power.
If the Wrepublicans hold on for a few years, the lack of cheap energy sources will send most of the world back to a preindustrial state.
And re-establish feudal aristocracy as the mode of government for the serfs that can't afford anything else.
In fact, the Saudi's are counting on it.
It's why they don't want cheap alternative energy.
Why do voters in the Ukraine organize against the Russian attempt to steal their election?
Do you really believe their patriotism alone does it? Without outside aid? Without the CIA making moves there against Putin's NeoKGB?
The Great Game is back in play. It's why Condi Rice is Secretary of State. It's Bigger and Better and run with the help of the So Called Liberal Media. And the AEI. And Wall Street. And Carlyle.
The players are rather disorganized and fractious and climbing all over each other- but follow the money, people.
The truth is out there.
But once again, there is power, and there is Power, and one does not imply the other.
What would he do if Hussien ramped up oil production, pegged it against the Euro, and caused Opec to follow suit? That would have made the dollar sink like a rock.
a) Saddam Hussein had about as much pull in OPEC as I do. If you've been paying attention to the reports from the Iraqi oilfields you'll know that they've been languishing under socialist mismanagement and neglect for the last fifty years.
b) There would have been no reason to trade oil in Euros, because the dollar would most likely still be rising against the euro, because the most fiscally irresponsible president in our history would never have moved into the White House. There's no reason to think that the fiscal prudence of the '90s wouldn't have continued under a Gore administration.
c) National Security Advisor Dick Clarke would have seen to it that the Atta ring was rounded up, eliminating the need, real or fictional, to invade anyone.
d) George Bush's incompetence as an administrator has little if anything to do with his willingness to profit illicitly from his father's brand of cronyism.
What would he do if Hussien ramped up oil production, pegged it against the Euro, and caused Opec to follow suit? That would have made the dollar sink like a rock.
a) Saddam Hussein had about as much pull in OPEC as I do. If you've been paying attention to the reports from the Iraqi oilfields you'll know that they've been languishing under socialist mismanagement and neglect for the last fifty years.
b) There would have been no reason to trade oil in Euros, because the dollar would most likely still be rising against the euro, because the most fiscally irresponsible president in our history would never have moved into the White House. There's no reason to think that the fiscal prudence of the '90s wouldn't have continued under a Gore administration.
c) National Security Advisor Dick Clarke would have seen to it that the Atta ring was rounded up, eliminating the need, real or fictional, to invade anyone.
d) George Bush's incompetence as an administrator has little if anything to do with his willingness to profit illicitly from his father's brand of cronyism.
b) There would have been no reason to trade oil in Euros, because the dollar would most likely still be rising against the euro, because the most fiscally irresponsible president in our history would never have moved into the White House. There's no reason to think that the fiscal prudence of the '90s wouldn't have continued under a Gore administration.
with all due respect, this is just plain wrong. There are plenty of analysis out there which document Hussiens intent.
b) There would have been no reason to trade oil in Euros, because the dollar would most likely still be rising against the euro, because the most fiscally irresponsible president in our history would never have moved into the White House. There's no reason to think that the fiscal prudence of the '90s wouldn't have continued under a Gore administration.
with all due respect, this is just plain wrong. There are plenty of analysis out there which document Hussiens intent.
I intend to obtain a singularity device that will enable me to travel the multiverse and tap infinite power for my own nefarious schemes.
Do I stand a realistic chance of doing this?
Don't talk about Saddam's intent.
You sound like you've been reading too many AEI missives.
I intend to obtain a singularity device that will enable me to travel the multiverse and tap infinite power for my own nefarious schemes.
Do I stand a realistic chance of doing this?
Don't talk about Saddam's intent.
You sound like you've been reading too many AEI missives.
Quoth: "Which brings us to the political question: can we change the world? Or only ourselves? And which one do we start with?"
In the largest possible sense, it's a false dichotomy, and we must start with whatever's in front of us. Changing ourselves is about as difficult as changing society; look at the temperance movement and the current takeover by the Christian right for examples of this. Changing society in a 'moral' direction isn't really that hard, if you have the will to corrupt your core message in the process, or if you lack the self-understanding to see that's exactly what you're doing. In other words, the truth is that no matter what you try to change, you'll always have to compromise to some degree.
So really, the answer to your question is this: You can have anything you want, if you ask for it in an unselfish tone of voice. The lesson will end up being about humility (or lack thereof), not political power or self-transformation.
As evidenced by this thread. 
Quoth: "Which brings us to the political question: can we change the world? Or only ourselves? And which one do we start with?"
In the largest possible sense, it's a false dichotomy, and we must start with whatever's in front of us. Changing ourselves is about as difficult as changing society; look at the temperance movement and the current takeover by the Christian right for examples of this. Changing society in a 'moral' direction isn't really that hard, if you have the will to corrupt your core message in the process, or if you lack the self-understanding to see that's exactly what you're doing. In other words, the truth is that no matter what you try to change, you'll always have to compromise to some degree.
So really, the answer to your question is this: You can have anything you want, if you ask for it in an unselfish tone of voice. The lesson will end up being about humility (or lack thereof), not political power or self-transformation.
As evidenced by this thread.
RMJ--
Thanks for the thread, and thanks for the Niebuhr. An unjustly neglected figure nowadays, and I am one of the neglecters, as I haven't read very much of him.
Niebuhr IS proof that not all Christians have to be raving gay hating abortion banning Talibornagain tools of the Republican Party. There has been a strong progessive side to Christianity in this country, from the abolition movement to the Social Gospel to Niebuhr to Martin Luther King.
It's only in the last generation or so, dating roughly from the great demoralization of the left after the assassination of RFK, that these voices have not been making themselves head or have been drowned out by the kinds of voices most Atriotes identify (and dismiss) as Christian.
RMJ--
Thanks for the thread, and thanks for the Niebuhr. An unjustly neglected figure nowadays, and I am one of the neglecters, as I haven't read very much of him.
Niebuhr IS proof that not all Christians have to be raving gay hating abortion banning Talibornagain tools of the Republican Party. There has been a strong progessive side to Christianity in this country, from the abolition movement to the Social Gospel to Niebuhr to Martin Luther King.
It's only in the last generation or so, dating roughly from the great demoralization of the left after the assassination of RFK, that these voices have not been making themselves head or have been drowned out by the kinds of voices most Atriotes identify (and dismiss) as Christian.
I am he as you are me and we are all together.
I am he as you are me and we are all together.
Ya' see, all Bush has to do is stabilise Iraq. That's all. Should be a snap, just take more troops what troops?... our allies what allies?... what money?... what credibility?...if everywhere else in the world stays quiet... if nobody else gets the bomb...
Bush is doing it again, same as he's always done, he's fucked it up beyond bailing out.
Ya' see, all Bush has to do is stabilise Iraq. That's all. Should be a snap, just take more troops what troops?... our allies what allies?... what money?... what credibility?...if everywhere else in the world stays quiet... if nobody else gets the bomb...
Bush is doing it again, same as he's always done, he's fucked it up beyond bailing out.
"Which brings us to the political question: can we change the world? Or only ourselves? And which one do we start with?"
I hold this to be a fundamental tenet of existence: Humanity is a cosmic experiment testing whether Life Itself can withstand selfish sentience (there are other kinds). So far the nul hypothesis is safe...
"Which brings us to the political question: can we change the world? Or only ourselves? And which one do we start with?"
I hold this to be a fundamental tenet of existence: Humanity is a cosmic experiment testing whether Life Itself can withstand selfish sentience (there are other kinds). So far the nul hypothesis is safe...
"Which brings us to the political question: can we change the world? Or only ourselves? And which one do we start with?"
I agree w/ Hecate - false dichotomy.
We're only part of the world. We effect the rest of the world by changing ourselves and we are effected by the rest of the world. All we can do is chnage ourselves.
However I think this delving of the left into religion is a little troubling. I think that if we try to become the new 'religious party' it will be disingenuous and it will appear that way.
All we cando is explain ourselves and communicate better. Our views not only are consistent w/ morality, but of course, as we believe, they champion morality more fully and truly than the views of some others. We just have to get this across better.
Thinking more, and more sincerely, about both God and ethics is a personal thing and a good thing that every liberal should delve into, but we should be wary of reducing it to a tactic or a sound-bite.
"Which brings us to the political question: can we change the world? Or only ourselves? And which one do we start with?"
I agree w/ Hecate - false dichotomy.
We're only part of the world. We effect the rest of the world by changing ourselves and we are effected by the rest of the world. All we can do is chnage ourselves.
However I think this delving of the left into religion is a little troubling. I think that if we try to become the new 'religious party' it will be disingenuous and it will appear that way.
All we cando is explain ourselves and communicate better. Our views not only are consistent w/ morality, but of course, as we believe, they champion morality more fully and truly than the views of some others. We just have to get this across better.
Thinking more, and more sincerely, about both God and ethics is a personal thing and a good thing that every liberal should delve into, but we should be wary of reducing it to a tactic or a sound-bite.
There are plenty of analysis out there which document Hussiens intent.
I didn't say anything about intent. What I said is that he couldn't have done it had he wanted to.
Much as he was unable to do anything serious to threaten Israel, which is why the Mossad basically didn't give a shit about him.
Oh, and you quoted the wrong part of my argument,
There are plenty of analysis out there which document Hussiens intent.
I didn't say anything about intent. What I said is that he couldn't have done it had he wanted to.
Much as he was unable to do anything serious to threaten Israel, which is why the Mossad basically didn't give a shit about him.
Oh, and you quoted the wrong part of my argument,
In the largest possible sense, it's a false dichotomy, and we must start with whatever's in front of us
Won't let you off the hook that easily. Which is in front of us: our self? Or society? Is there properly a distinction? Is "society" really in front of us, waiting for our direction? Or is what's "in front of us" only our self, and what we can do with it? And if that changes society, well and good. But if it only benefits us, is that okay, too?
Depends, of course, on the definition of "what benefits us." Donald Trump has one answer, Thomas Merton another.
In the largest possible sense, it's a false dichotomy, and we must start with whatever's in front of us
Won't let you off the hook that easily. Which is in front of us: our self? Or society? Is there properly a distinction? Is "society" really in front of us, waiting for our direction? Or is what's "in front of us" only our self, and what we can do with it? And if that changes society, well and good. But if it only benefits us, is that okay, too?
Depends, of course, on the definition of "what benefits us." Donald Trump has one answer, Thomas Merton another.
This week there was an article in the NY Times describing how Oregon voters had passed a measure that requires the state to reimburse landowners for zoning restrictions which prevent the owner from realizing a profit on his/her land.
Now from what I understand, part of the reason Oregon is growing by leaps and bounds is that these very restrictions have been a rousing success in creating a nice place to live. So here you have the State, acting to make life better for citizens, and individual citizens voting against their own long term interest, even while admitting that that they don't want a Walmart superstore moving next door, or a manufacturing plant polluting their creek. But, getting an immediate profit trumps all other concerns.
In other words the collective good, in this case propogated by the state) has been undone by the individual (acting in concert) who stands to gain.
Which goes to your question of what comes first, individuals changing thus forcing the State to take notice, or the State.
Too confusing. But it has been in the back of my mind all day. Good post RMJ, thank you.
This week there was an article in the NY Times describing how Oregon voters had passed a measure that requires the state to reimburse landowners for zoning restrictions which prevent the owner from realizing a profit on his/her land.
Now from what I understand, part of the reason Oregon is growing by leaps and bounds is that these very restrictions have been a rousing success in creating a nice place to live. So here you have the State, acting to make life better for citizens, and individual citizens voting against their own long term interest, even while admitting that that they don't want a Walmart superstore moving next door, or a manufacturing plant polluting their creek. But, getting an immediate profit trumps all other concerns.
In other words the collective good, in this case propogated by the state) has been undone by the individual (acting in concert) who stands to gain.
Which goes to your question of what comes first, individuals changing thus forcing the State to take notice, or the State.
Too confusing. But it has been in the back of my mind all day. Good post RMJ, thank you.
Do you REALLY think you are safe and secure with Bush as president?
SUBWAYS; $6 Billion to upgrade security on subways and trains in large cities.
BUSH administration; $100 million.
IRAQ; 8 hours = $100 million
AIRPORTS; $3 Billion to equip our airports with baggage screening for explosives.
BUSH administration; $400 million.
IRAQ; 32 hours = $400 million
US PORTS; $1.1 Billion for security upgrades at major US port security.
BUSH administration; $210 million for port security.
IRAQ; 17 hours = $210 million
US PORTS; $290 million to equip US ports with radiation portals to detect nuclear weapons and bombs.
BUSH administration; $43 million.
IRAQ; 3 HOURS = $43 million
MEDICAL CREWS; $1.4 Billion, the amount necessary to prepare major medical crews for a terrorist attacks.
BUSH administration; $50 million
IRAQ; 4 hours = $50 million
THIS PROGRAM HAS BEEN ELIMINATED COMPLETELY
(Sources for the above numbers: American Public Transportation Association, FY 2005 budget, Government Accountability Office, Council on Foreign Relations, U.S. Coast Guard, House Appropriations Committee.]
This is your HOMELAND SECURITY program. Way to go Bush !
Do you REALLY think you are safe and secure with Bush as president?
SUBWAYS; $6 Billion to upgrade security on subways and trains in large cities.
BUSH administration; $100 million.
IRAQ; 8 hours = $100 million
AIRPORTS; $3 Billion to equip our airports with baggage screening for explosives.
BUSH administration; $400 million.
IRAQ; 32 hours = $400 million
US PORTS; $1.1 Billion for security upgrades at major US port security.
BUSH administration; $210 million for port security.
IRAQ; 17 hours = $210 million
US PORTS; $290 million to equip US ports with radiation portals to detect nuclear weapons and bombs.
BUSH administration; $43 million.
IRAQ; 3 HOURS = $43 million
MEDICAL CREWS; $1.4 Billion, the amount necessary to prepare major medical crews for a terrorist attacks.
BUSH administration; $50 million
IRAQ; 4 hours = $50 million
THIS PROGRAM HAS BEEN ELIMINATED COMPLETELY
(Sources for the above numbers: American Public Transportation Association, FY 2005 budget, Government Accountability Office, Council on Foreign Relations, U.S. Coast Guard, House Appropriations Committee.]
This is your HOMELAND SECURITY program. Way to go Bush !
This is an easy one:
"can we change the world?"
No.
"Or only ourselves?"
At best, ourselves.
"And which one do we start with?"
Start with yourself. Whatever flows out that, will flow out of that.
Cheers -
This is an easy one:
"can we change the world?"
No.
"Or only ourselves?"
At best, ourselves.
"And which one do we start with?"
Start with yourself. Whatever flows out that, will flow out of that.
Cheers -
If you truly appreciate a single thread your eye can suitably meet the world and its changes. Seeing clearly, do not be fooled, and the ten thousand situations cannot shroud you. Moonlight falls on the water; wind blows over the pines. Light and shadow do not confuse us; sounds or voices do not block us. The whistling wind can resonate, pervading without impediment through the various structures. Flowing along with things, harmonizing without deviation, thoroughly abandoning webs of dust, still one does not yet arrive in the original home. Put to rest the remnants of your conditioning. Sit empty of worldly anxiety, silent and bright, clear and illuminating, blank and accepting, far-reaching and responsive. Without encountering external dusts, fulfilled in your own spirit, arrive at this field and immediately recognize your ancestors.
Hongzhi Zhengjue (1091-1157)
If you truly appreciate a single thread your eye can suitably meet the world and its changes. Seeing clearly, do not be fooled, and the ten thousand situations cannot shroud you. Moonlight falls on the water; wind blows over the pines. Light and shadow do not confuse us; sounds or voices do not block us. The whistling wind can resonate, pervading without impediment through the various structures. Flowing along with things, harmonizing without deviation, thoroughly abandoning webs of dust, still one does not yet arrive in the original home. Put to rest the remnants of your conditioning. Sit empty of worldly anxiety, silent and bright, clear and illuminating, blank and accepting, far-reaching and responsive. Without encountering external dusts, fulfilled in your own spirit, arrive at this field and immediately recognize your ancestors.
Hongzhi Zhengjue (1091-1157)
Beware the beast, Neotheocon -- a power-hungry paradox, a Big Government Conservative. An unsettling admixture of corporatism and theocracy, he will feed on the debts of our children to fund tax breaks for the rich, yachts for the president, and social controls on our families. He will demand a bizarro-world Soviet society, where religion is inculcated and conglomerated capitalism is freed. Shun him, for he is the harbinger of fascism.
Beware the beast, Neotheocon -- a power-hungry paradox, a Big Government Conservative. An unsettling admixture of corporatism and theocracy, he will feed on the debts of our children to fund tax breaks for the rich, yachts for the president, and social controls on our families. He will demand a bizarro-world Soviet society, where religion is inculcated and conglomerated capitalism is freed. Shun him, for he is the harbinger of fascism.
Quoth:
>>In the largest possible sense, it's a false dichotomy, and we must start with whatever's in front of us
"Won't let you off the hook that easily. Which is in front of us: our self? Or society? Is there properly a distinction? Is "society" really in front of us, waiting for our direction? Or is what's "in front of us" only our self, and what we can do with it? And if that changes society, well and good. But if it only benefits us, is that okay, too?"
Yes.
No, seriously, whatever's in front of you is whatever you're capable of seeing in front of you. It's whatever you're aware of. If you see an injustice and you must right that wrong, then you should. If you see intolerance growing inside you, then you should do what you can about it. Arguing about whether one is more important than the other is a cop out that prevents learning, and learning is where it's at.
All you have to do is look, and see, and there's plenty of wrongs to right. Like I said, though, humility is what this lesson ends up being about, since you can't right all the wrongs of the universe, whether they're internal or external to you.
The next level after that is to realize that the universe doesn't contain 'wrongs,' only
'things,' and you're the one putting the 'wrong' label on it. After that, you're (relatively) free to right those wrongs without fear of turning into a self-righteous power-monger who has lost sight of your goal in pursuit of the pursuit. But that's only after you get the Buddha merit badge. And that's a hard one to get, so forget I said anything.
So, in summation... A spiritual framework for political action: 1) Be aware. 2) Act through awareness. 3) Learn things. 4) Don't get caught up in philosophical questions, but rather use them to help guide you towards awareness and/or action. 5) Repeat. 6) Die knowing you did what you could, and also knowing that there's no way you can ever really do enough in a given lifetime.
Or I could be full of shit.
Quoth:
>>In the largest possible sense, it's a false dichotomy, and we must start with whatever's in front of us
"Won't let you off the hook that easily. Which is in front of us: our self? Or society? Is there properly a distinction? Is "society" really in front of us, waiting for our direction? Or is what's "in front of us" only our self, and what we can do with it? And if that changes society, well and good. But if it only benefits us, is that okay, too?"
Yes.
No, seriously, whatever's in front of you is whatever you're capable of seeing in front of you. It's whatever you're aware of. If you see an injustice and you must right that wrong, then you should. If you see intolerance growing inside you, then you should do what you can about it. Arguing about whether one is more important than the other is a cop out that prevents learning, and learning is where it's at.
All you have to do is look, and see, and there's plenty of wrongs to right. Like I said, though, humility is what this lesson ends up being about, since you can't right all the wrongs of the universe, whether they're internal or external to you.
The next level after that is to realize that the universe doesn't contain 'wrongs,' only
'things,' and you're the one putting the 'wrong' label on it. After that, you're (relatively) free to right those wrongs without fear of turning into a self-righteous power-monger who has lost sight of your goal in pursuit of the pursuit. But that's only after you get the Buddha merit badge. And that's a hard one to get, so forget I said anything.
So, in summation... A spiritual framework for political action: 1) Be aware. 2) Act through awareness. 3) Learn things. 4) Don't get caught up in philosophical questions, but rather use them to help guide you towards awareness and/or action. 5) Repeat. 6) Die knowing you did what you could, and also knowing that there's no way you can ever really do enough in a given lifetime.
Or I could be full of shit.
That should be 'political activity' rather than 'political action,' since the latter term implies something other than what I was trying to say.
That should be 'political activity' rather than 'political action,' since the latter term implies something other than what I was trying to say.
Mike wrote:
"Now, that's not to say there won't be hardship, that is entirely likely to be sure. However, the sky is not falling. The USA can withstand a shakeout, and those companies and consumers living beyond their means will feel the pinch. But, the effect will be lower wages and lower cost of business, which means a migration back to the US for manufacturing."
From an article in today's Washington Post entitled "In China, Workers Turn Tough":
"The result has been a near-total lack of representation for millions of workers, most of them 18- to 22-year-old women, who toil on assembly lines more than 60 hours a week for wages that amount to about $120 a month. According to standard practice, most live at their factories in company-provided dormitories and eat in company cafeterias -- and then hand back a third of their pay for food and lodging."
I hope I don't get stampeded by corporations migrating back to the US for manufacturing. By my calculations the above mentioned Chinese persons are working for 50 cents an hour. I don't think I can stand that much of a "pinch", seeing as I plan to continue to eat meals, have a place to live, etc.
Please tell me you are kidding when you spew your faith based economics. It has to be joke, right? You can't possibly believe what you are saying, right?
jeebus,
jollo
Mike wrote:
"Now, that's not to say there won't be hardship, that is entirely likely to be sure. However, the sky is not falling. The USA can withstand a shakeout, and those companies and consumers living beyond their means will feel the pinch. But, the effect will be lower wages and lower cost of business, which means a migration back to the US for manufacturing."
From an article in today's Washington Post entitled "In China, Workers Turn Tough":
"The result has been a near-total lack of representation for millions of workers, most of them 18- to 22-year-old women, who toil on assembly lines more than 60 hours a week for wages that amount to about $120 a month. According to standard practice, most live at their factories in company-provided dormitories and eat in company cafeterias -- and then hand back a third of their pay for food and lodging."
I hope I don't get stampeded by corporations migrating back to the US for manufacturing. By my calculations the above mentioned Chinese persons are working for 50 cents an hour. I don't think I can stand that much of a "pinch", seeing as I plan to continue to eat meals, have a place to live, etc.
Please tell me you are kidding when you spew your faith based economics. It has to be joke, right? You can't possibly believe what you are saying, right?
jeebus,
jollo
"He becomes a "leader" by showing himself worthy of being followed."
apropos the US as no longer leader of the world: under the Bushliar the US lost the respect of the rest of the world.
Now the US is only feared, not admired.
"He becomes a "leader" by showing himself worthy of being followed."
apropos the US as no longer leader of the world: under the Bushliar the US lost the respect of the rest of the world.
Now the US is only feared, not admired.
Robert M., you have definitely made a major contribution to the eclecticism of this blog. (I just got back to the Internets, as a certain of your fellow Texans would say, and am in a hurry here.) I think that for anyone to properly answer your question would require a lot of words.
But the foundation of my view is that humans are social animals, we are defined by our sociality. It makes no sense at bottom to speak of transforming oneself without simultaneously transforming society. We're plugged into society, how we change ourselves changes everyone with whom we come in contact. The only question is how broadly we extend our thinking about the networks in which we are embedded.
Why don't you start a blog my friend? I'd visit.
Robert M., you have definitely made a major contribution to the eclecticism of this blog. (I just got back to the Internets, as a certain of your fellow Texans would say, and am in a hurry here.) I think that for anyone to properly answer your question would require a lot of words.
But the foundation of my view is that humans are social animals, we are defined by our sociality. It makes no sense at bottom to speak of transforming oneself without simultaneously transforming society. We're plugged into society, how we change ourselves changes everyone with whom we come in contact. The only question is how broadly we extend our thinking about the networks in which we are embedded.
Why don't you start a blog my friend? I'd visit.
I referenced the insufferable David Brooks as digging up Niebuhr not long ago for neocon ends that would have appalled the great liberal theologian - here's another abomination. The title of an article that appeared in the WSJ claiming the cretinous "Christian" W as a Niebuhr disciple. Of course, W's never even heard of him...
"The War Party's Theologian
President Bush carries on the liberal tradition of Reinhold Niebuhr.
BY JOSEPH LOCONTE
Friday, May 31, 2002 - The Wall Street Journal."
I referenced the insufferable David Brooks as digging up Niebuhr not long ago for neocon ends that would have appalled the great liberal theologian - here's another abomination. The title of an article that appeared in the WSJ claiming the cretinous "Christian" W as a Niebuhr disciple. Of course, W's never even heard of him...
"The War Party's Theologian
President Bush carries on the liberal tradition of Reinhold Niebuhr.
BY JOSEPH LOCONTE
Friday, May 31, 2002 - The Wall Street Journal."
A little late here as usual...I used to spend a good bit of time working on this sort of question. My conclusion, reached a long time ago and the source of most of my life work since...is that there's an interplay between society and the individual. And in as much as individuals within a society can be open and available from Spirit/Truth to work through them, the Kingdom of Heaven is upon them. My experience is that wherever two or more are gathered seeking Truth, Spirit is present. (And indeed, wherever two or more are gathered seeking truth, peace, discord, creative and destructive potential are all present: SO WATCH OUT!)
Love is the key to the Kingdom. Salama, Shalom, Peace....
A little late here as usual...I used to spend a good bit of time working on this sort of question. My conclusion, reached a long time ago and the source of most of my life work since...is that there's an interplay between society and the individual. And in as much as individuals within a society can be open and available from Spirit/Truth to work through them, the Kingdom of Heaven is upon them. My experience is that wherever two or more are gathered seeking Truth, Spirit is present. (And indeed, wherever two or more are gathered seeking truth, peace, discord, creative and destructive potential are all present: SO WATCH OUT!)
Love is the key to the Kingdom. Salama, Shalom, Peace....
"World markets are fueled by oil. If we do not stabilize Iraq, Opec will peg oil to the Euro.
That's Bush's immediate problem. He has to get Iraq stabilized quickly"
If you believe that he could do that, or even that he wants to do that Mike, you muat be on some really good drugs. Next time bring enough for everybody.
"God, give us grace to accept with serenity the things that cannot be changed, courage to change the things that should be changed, and the wisdom to distinguish the one from the other."
That prayer is said in twelve step meetings of all stripes all over the world.
I don't mind that Bush was/is a drug and alcohol abuser. I do mind that he never did the work to get his life in order.
He still doesn't do the work, and all of humanity is paying the price.
Just imagine, if you will, the day that junior DOES hit bottom and decides to clean up.
Fourth step "Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves"
would be really tough. The eigth step would be nearly impossible.
"Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make ammends to them all."
"World markets are fueled by oil. If we do not stabilize Iraq, Opec will peg oil to the Euro.
That's Bush's immediate problem. He has to get Iraq stabilized quickly"
If you believe that he could do that, or even that he wants to do that Mike, you muat be on some really good drugs. Next time bring enough for everybody.
"God, give us grace to accept with serenity the things that cannot be changed, courage to change the things that should be changed, and the wisdom to distinguish the one from the other."
That prayer is said in twelve step meetings of all stripes all over the world.
I don't mind that Bush was/is a drug and alcohol abuser. I do mind that he never did the work to get his life in order.
He still doesn't do the work, and all of humanity is paying the price.
Just imagine, if you will, the day that junior DOES hit bottom and decides to clean up.
Fourth step "Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves"
would be really tough. The eigth step would be nearly impossible.
"Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make ammends to them all."
Granny, if you hang out with any 12-steppers for any length of time, you'll soon learn that it is, in fact, REALLY HARD.
I find it hard to begrudge Bush any of his decisions about his addiction(s). It just doesn't accomplish anything to whine about it. If he *was* addicted (to whatever), and now he's relatively sober, then that's pretty monumentally impressive.
The problem isn't that he was addicted, or that he's still addicted, or that he didn't do the 12-steps and got religion instead. No, those aren't problems. The problem is that the dude has no idea what to do with the power he's got, so he lets all his pals tell him what to sign, what buttons to push, and what to say in public.
Granny, if you hang out with any 12-steppers for any length of time, you'll soon learn that it is, in fact, REALLY HARD.
I find it hard to begrudge Bush any of his decisions about his addiction(s). It just doesn't accomplish anything to whine about it. If he *was* addicted (to whatever), and now he's relatively sober, then that's pretty monumentally impressive.
The problem isn't that he was addicted, or that he's still addicted, or that he didn't do the 12-steps and got religion instead. No, those aren't problems. The problem is that the dude has no idea what to do with the power he's got, so he lets all his pals tell him what to sign, what buttons to push, and what to say in public.
You will get absolutely nowhere insisting that society has a duty or obligation of any moral sort.
The entire thrust of capitalism is to enshrine what Hobbes called the war of all against all. Or put another way, by an economist this time: all for me and nothing for thee.
You will get absolutely nowhere insisting that society has a duty or obligation of any moral sort.
The entire thrust of capitalism is to enshrine what Hobbes called the war of all against all. Or put another way, by an economist this time: all for me and nothing for thee.
Cool post, RMJ.
Neibuhr was a powerful theologian of course--I doubt America has produced another of his rank since. But much of what he wrote can be read with great profit as straight up political theory (albeit in an Augustinian key). In addition to MMIS, this is true of The Children of Light and The Children of Darkness, where he argues that if liberal commitments are to survive and flourish, they need more "realistic" foundations than historical liberalism, left to its own devices, is able to give them.
This is also the book where Neibuhr gave us another of his memorable lines: "Man's capacity for justice makes democracy possible; but man's inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary." He tries hard here to strike a balance between optimism of will (regarding our capacity for democracy) and pessimism of intelligence (regarding democracy's inevitable shortcomings and vulnerabilities). Concerning the task of progressive social change--of changing the world--I imagine he might say that some similarly tricky balance is in order.
Certainly, societies--including democracies--must not sacrifice themselves to realize any moral ideal. The duty of the society to preserve itself puts real (and salutary) bounds on the sacrifices it can legitimately ask of its members.
But that leaves a lot of room for those same members to cultivate a political morality. We needn't (mustn't actually) accept a society that is boundlessly immoral. It's just that political morality, being bound by the relativity and contingencies of political life, has to be what Neibuhr called "morally ambiguous," meaning that, as he put it, "it cannot merely reject, but must also deflect, beguile, harness and use self-interest for the sake of a tolerable harmony of the whole."
Of course, that's easier said than done! It's like recommending a political ethic that's inspired in equal parts by Jesus of Nazareth and Machiavelli. But then the attraction of Neibuhr was never that he made things look easy (on the contrary). Anyway, thanks for the provocation!
Cool post, RMJ.
Neibuhr was a powerful theologian of course--I doubt America has produced another of his rank since. But much of what he wrote can be read with great profit as straight up political theory (albeit in an Augustinian key). In addition to MMIS, this is true of The Children of Light and The Children of Darkness, where he argues that if liberal commitments are to survive and flourish, they need more "realistic" foundations than historical liberalism, left to its own devices, is able to give them.
This is also the book where Neibuhr gave us another of his memorable lines: "Man's capacity for justice makes democracy possible; but man's inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary." He tries hard here to strike a balance between optimism of will (regarding our capacity for democracy) and pessimism of intelligence (regarding democracy's inevitable shortcomings and vulnerabilities). Concerning the task of progressive social change--of changing the world--I imagine he might say that some similarly tricky balance is in order.
Certainly, societies--including democracies--must not sacrifice themselves to realize any moral ideal. The duty of the society to preserve itself puts real (and salutary) bounds on the sacrifices it can legitimately ask of its members.
But that leaves a lot of room for those same members to cultivate a political morality. We needn't (mustn't actually) accept a society that is boundlessly immoral. It's just that political morality, being bound by the relativity and contingencies of political life, has to be what Neibuhr called "morally ambiguous," meaning that, as he put it, "it cannot merely reject, but must also deflect, beguile, harness and use self-interest for the sake of a tolerable harmony of the whole."
Of course, that's easier said than done! It's like recommending a political ethic that's inspired in equal parts by Jesus of Nazareth and Machiavelli. But then the attraction of Neibuhr was never that he made things look easy (on the contrary). Anyway, thanks for the provocation!
We can change society, because society is the result of our actions. We have a duty to ensure that our society is wise and just. But justice and morality, especially religious morality, are very different things.
If Niebuhr's argument is that society cannot call upon individuals to make great sacrifices for moral reasons, I would agree, but only for the cases where religious morality doesn't overlap with social justice. It has never been wrong for society to ask its members to make significant sacrifices, if it is in a just cause.
The problem is moral issues where people have strong feelings and cannot agree. Many people in such a situation are unwilling to compromise their morals. But there is a moral reason to compromise. In a free and democratic society, people are free to act morally, according to their particular religious faith or moral philosophy, except they may not infringe upon the religious freedom of others. That requirement is not based on religious morality; it is a matter of social justice. Yet the result is a generally more moral society, even if it is seen as immoral on some wedge issues.
Using society to impose morality on others is unjust and immoral.
We can change society, because society is the result of our actions. We have a duty to ensure that our society is wise and just. But justice and morality, especially religious morality, are very different things.
If Niebuhr's argument is that society cannot call upon individuals to make great sacrifices for moral reasons, I would agree, but only for the cases where religious morality doesn't overlap with social justice. It has never been wrong for society to ask its members to make significant sacrifices, if it is in a just cause.
The problem is moral issues where people have strong feelings and cannot agree. Many people in such a situation are unwilling to compromise their morals. But there is a moral reason to compromise. In a free and democratic society, people are free to act morally, according to their particular religious faith or moral philosophy, except they may not infringe upon the religious freedom of others. That requirement is not based on religious morality; it is a matter of social justice. Yet the result is a generally more moral society, even if it is seen as immoral on some wedge issues.
Using society to impose morality on others is unjust and immoral.
If Niebuhr.s fundamental tenet for society is 'protect the constituency', then I believe you must add further questions to your list: who is the constituency? who comprise the "we" of the society in question? and what makes that group a "we"?
If Niebuhr.s fundamental tenet for society is 'protect the constituency', then I believe you must add further questions to your list: who is the constituency? who comprise the "we" of the society in question? and what makes that group a "we"?
Which brings us to the political question: can we change the world? Or only ourselves? And which one do we start with?
The answer is yes. This is really a both/and question. Niebuhr's problem was that he tended to see things in terms of false dichotomies. I think his essential modus operandus was: "I'll take the opposite position of whatever John Dewey said." Dewey believed in totalities, what we would refer to today as interdependence. I can change myself. When I've changed myself, I've changed society. Just because my vision is limited and I can't see the repercussions of my actions, doesn't mean the effect hasn't taken place.
Which brings us to the political question: can we change the world? Or only ourselves? And which one do we start with?
The answer is yes. This is really a both/and question. Niebuhr's problem was that he tended to see things in terms of false dichotomies. I think his essential modus operandus was: "I'll take the opposite position of whatever John Dewey said." Dewey believed in totalities, what we would refer to today as interdependence. I can change myself. When I've changed myself, I've changed society. Just because my vision is limited and I can't see the repercussions of my actions, doesn't mean the effect hasn't taken place.
Never mind the fact that, according to his statements in The Nature and Destiny of Man, society (or the nation) is almost always treated as a false god by the individual.
Never mind the fact that, according to his statements in The Nature and Destiny of Man, society (or the nation) is almost always treated as a false god by the individual.
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
