Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Billy_TParticipantThanks, Invader,
That was a good discussion. I agree with Jones and Carr, especially. Carr said what I was thinking too:
Again, once the linemen are there, back off. Especially when you don’t have your helmet on. Let the refs (and coaches) take care of things. Garrett was going backwards, which means Rudolph had to charge him in order to get near enough to . . . do what? What did Rudolph think would happen when he charged a player already being pushed backwards by DeCastro . . . the only “hero” in this entire affair?
What did he expect? Obviously, not an helmet to the head. Again, that’s unconscionable. But he had to have known it meant more fighting. A restarted fight. So, again, why isn’t Rudolph getting a suspension?
I also didn’t like his comments to the media. Garrett owned up to his mistake. Rudolph just piled on, called him a coward, etc. etc. He needed to own up to his own part in the melee.
In short, there is a lot of blame to go around, including Rudolph.
Billy_TParticipantBut if we look at it with cold eyes, it’s just a fact of Cause and Effect that Rudolph’s running back into the fray, squaring up directly with Garrett, when he was already contained by DeCastro and another Pittsburgh lineman . . . . Well, I see that as escalation, totally unnecessary and pretty stupid.
I agree that was pretty stupid.
you’re not the only one. guys on nfl network were saying rudolph was getting off way too lightly.
although they said no doubt that there was no excuse for what garrett did.
Well, that makes me feel a bit better.
;>)
One way to consider this: Again, Rudolph went back into the fray, charged Garrett, who was already entangled with DeCastro and another lineman. That’s three on one. If Garrett had responded with a shove, or even a fist, would the conversation about “fault” be different in the aftermath? I think that’s a given.
It was the severity — and potential lethality — of his reaction that altered the discussion. But he reacted TO the charge from Rudolph (indefensibly).
Again, the counterfactual comes into play: If Rudolph goes back to his sideline, or even stands among his teammates, waiting for the refs to clean things up, and doesn’t charge Garrett, there is no escalation, no punching and kicking from Pouncey, no shoving of Rudolph from behind, no smashed head from his own lineman, etc. etc.
It’s just linemen engaged in, ironically, what they had been doing all game long — pushing and pulling at each other in the trenches.
I think it’s natural for people to want a certain kind of clarity in fights like this. They want someone to be at fault, and others to be innocent. Either/or, not both/and. In this case, I think it’s clear that Rudolph was at fault too. This in no way excuses Garrett’s response. But Rudolph actually restarted the battle with his own actions.
I’d suspend and fine him too — and make absolutely certain he was medically okay.
Billy_TParticipantI don’t go on twitter, cept to click on links posted by others here and in other forums.
So I haven’t followed the back and forth. But, as mentioned, I did watch a lot of the talk today, on shows like Get Up, which had more than a half dozen former players weigh in. None of them suggested Rudolph was in any way at fault.
I derived my minor dissent from re-re-re-watching the video, and seeing the way the whole thing developed. No equivalence between their actions. None. Garrett could have killed Rudolph. Not just hurt him. But killed him. People watching the game could have witnessed an actual case of manslaughter, first hand. So there is no equivalency. But if we look at it with cold eyes, it’s just a fact of Cause and Effect that Rudolph’s running back into the fray, squaring up directly with Garrett, when he was already contained by DeCastro and another Pittsburgh lineman . . . . Well, I see that as escalation, totally unnecessary and pretty stupid.
It doesn’t excuse Garrett’s reaction in the slightest. It. Was. Indefensible. But there is no hammer thrown if Rudolph doesn’t go after Garrett at that point. It’s just Garrett being forced backward by DeCastro and the other lineman.
Anyway . . . that’s my two cents.
Billy_TParticipantZN,
Thanks for the additions.
Good point about how crazy it was to let Rudolph back on the field, if that is what happened.
The helmet to the head had to have meant a concussion of some kind, and then his own lineman kneed him in the head, accidentally, after he was pushed from behind. In slow-motion, that second hit looked really bad too.
Again, I hope he gets serious medical attention, completely independent of any CYA by the NFL.
What’s your take on my take that Rudolph is partially at fault in this mess too? Again, this is no way excuses what Garrett did. That was indefensible. But I think Rudolph’s actions escalated what could have been a far lesser tussle between teams. He should not have run back into the fray, especially without his helmet on.
Billy_TParticipantThanks, WV, for posting this.
I’m a huge fan of Dr. Wolff. Watched the first 18 minutes or so, and will go back later to finish it up.
Two quick comments: Professor Wolff is actually being too kind to capitalism with his OxFam stat. He must not have kept up with their most recent assessments. It’s down to 30 people (last time I checked), and shrinking, and I’ve read others claim it’s just eight humans holding half the wealth of the world.
Also, socialism actually has a pretty long history of being anti-state and desirous of a ground up, localized, democratization of the workplace and society. I may have misread his commentary, but it sounds like he’s saying this is a new focus for socialists, that we learned from past mistakes, etc. etc. From my reading of the history, it’s actually the Soviet Union, Cuba, China, etc. etc. who veered wildly away from socialist tradition. They imposed “state capitalism,” not socialism.
(Hopefully he clarifies this later in his talk or Q and A.)
Other than the above, I’m in agreement with his take on things. Have been since the first time I read him or watched his youtube lectures.
Billy_TParticipantI messed up on the formatting, so I’ll just answer here without the quotes.
;>)
Your response was a goodin’, and helped clarify the “emphasis” point. Thanks.
It’s a shame, though, that we’re in such a fecked up moment in time, that critique of the most powerful person on earth might be misinterpreted as support for the opposing party. Isn’t that kinda sad?
Anyway, a clarification of my own:
My thing isn’t the relative “significance” of the Russian interference, and I’ve said repeatedly that I think the US is guilty of much worse overall. As in, more of it, more often, over more time, and to worse effect.
My thing is that if an American chases after, exploits, willingly receives foreign help, he or she needs to be held to account. The real issue is on the American side, for me, not the Russian.
It’s one of those “givens” that no nation should be doing this shhht. But it’s also a given that empires and nation-states always have. So until we can put a stop to the practice, we should focus on holding to account . . . individuals, groups and parties that willingly take advantage of that geopolitical chess for their own ends.
Billy_TParticipantForgot to mention:
There’s no evidence that Trump is against “endless wars.” It means nothing to me that he said it. He has nearly 14,000 lies on the books since he took office. Do his deeds match that comment? No. Again, he’s escalated our wars and ordered more troops into Saudi Arabia, gave them greater support in their genocidal war in Yemen, expanded drone attacks overall, weapons sales, jacked up defense spending, launched a failed coup in Venezuela, rattles his saber constantly against Iran, and early on against NK, etc. etc.
I’m not seeing what Hedges is seeing. Words mean nothing, if they aren’t backed up by deeds. His deeds tell me he’s fine with war. He just wants to get credit for them, one way or another.
Billy_TParticipantI think the main problem with Hedge’s premise stems from its Manichean foundation.
If X is bad, and it “goes after” Y, Y must be good, or innocent, or the battle itself can’t be fair or justified.
To me, this is problematic for a host of reasons, with two (perhaps) being most essential.
It’s a broad brush take on the supposedly “bad” entity or person, and doesn’t allow for diversity within those entities and/or across time.
And it doesn’t consider the possibility that both “sides” in the battle might be bad, or at fault.
Crips against the Bloods. One mafia family against another, etc.
Or, “good guys” within the entity deemed bad, with proper intentions, perhaps even “noble.”
In short, I think Hedges and some of his peers make huge assumptions in their critiques, and I think they narrow the possibilities to suit a preset narrative.
Just my take. Hope all is well, WV.
Billy_TParticipantI watched it again to see if I had jumped the gun a bit. I heard a bit more of a critique of Trump the second time, but then he basically cancels that out by turning Trump into the supposed victim.
He wasn’t. He isn’t. He brought all of this on himself. Again, if he hadn’t lashed out in the most personal way against the people Hedges mentioned, threatened them with investigations, called them traitors, etc. etc., they wouldn’t have responded in kind. And prior to that, if he and his campaign hadn’t colluded with Russia and Wikileaks to try to win the election, no investigation would have been launched in the first place. An investigation, btw, that was kept hidden until after the election — unlike HRC’s.
(Also: there is no Mueller investigation if Trump hadn’t fired Comey)
And Hedges is wrong about the collusion. That was proven by Mueller. I think Hedges is falling for the semantic trope that tripped up so many Americans:
1. There was no collusion (regarding the DNC hack)
2. There was no collusion with the Russians, period.It’s true they couldn’t prove #1, and I’m guessing Russia acted on its own. But we know the Trump campaign did collude with Russia after that. The Trump Tower meeting was “collusion,” and Mueller lists more than 150 other contacts in his report.
It’s similar to Bush’s causing 9/11 or just exploiting it after the fact. I go with the latter case, instead of the Truthers’ take.
Billy_TParticipantHedges leaves out all “context” in his critique here, and IMO he’s carrying water for Trump in the process.
It’s not a mystery why some in the Intel community have “gone after Trump.” Trump went after them, relentlessly, in public, on TV, in his tweets, on Fox, fired many of them, called them traitors, again, in public, for having the audacity to investigate his campaign.
Very disappointed in Hedges, yet again, leaving all of that out.
I realize it sounds a great deal juicier to make this into a Le Carre novel, but it’s actually a great deal more banal than that. No president in the history of America has ever attacked his own government like Trump. That includes his own appointees. It would be shocking if they didn’t eventually push back. And it’s not because Trump is somehow this champion antiwar voice, or is against the American empire.
In my view, Hedges is just being flat out silly for suggesting that. Trump fomented a (failed) coup in Venezuela, threatened to nuke North Korea, constantly threatens war with Iran, and has radically increased both defense spending and arms proliferation worldwide. He’s the Pentagon’s dream president, as well as the Intel community’s.
(Take away his personal attacks, and they’d love him and keep their usually silence)
And corporate America? He slashed their taxes and accelerated deregulation and privatization more than any president since Reagan.
Sheesh.
Billy_TParticipantGreat quote from Bertrand. An extremely important antiwar and humanitarian voice, as well as being an amazing mathematician.
I haven’t read any bios of him, but over years have gathered that he also had a true sense of humility. The much younger Wittgenstein floored him with his brilliance, and if memory serves, he had no problem acknowledging his superiority in matters of math and logic.
That’s pretty rare when it comes to famous people, including famous intellectuals.
Anyway, knowledge and compassion equals wisdom. I like that. My own bias is that the left attracts that combo more than any other part of the spectrum. I’d also add “creativity.” Yes, the center and right have their artists too. But it seems that “creatives” are pulled more often to left of center views.
Knowledge, compassion (wisdom) and the arts. The trifecta, in no particular order, for me.
Billy_TParticipantWell, ZN,
I vote that your vote is the wrong vote. That’s my . . . um, vote.
;>)
But, yeah, there’s plenty of room for different takes on the O-line and what ails the Rams. We should be able to agree, however, that they are ailing, whatever the rationales.
It’s all the more frustrating, when we think of the promise we all likely felt before the season. Despite my reservations about the O-line, and they were strong reservations, I still had no doubt the Rams would make the playoffs and do well in them.
Now, my cold-eyed look at the team says they’re not going to make the playoffs at all, while my fan-side says it’s still possible.
Regardless, they’re going to have to make some major changes in the off-season. IMO, it starts with the O-line. And if I had my druthers, they’d bring in a monstrous-sized, lane-clogging DT too.
Billy_TParticipantI listened to a bit of the game on Game Pass radio, saw a few highlights on NFL network, but decided against watching the replay. Too depressing.
From what I heard and read, including from posters here, it sounds like most of the loss comes down to the O-line. Injuries, plus the line wasn’t good even prior to them.
Told you so’s generally aren’t good form . . . but I’m gonna show bad form today. Cuz, yeah, I thought they neglected the O-line before the season started. They put far too much trust in their red-shirts and late round picks. And I was never a fan of Havenstein from Day One.In a league with more and more elite athletes on defense, you can’t survive with poor athletes on the O-line. You need to match them. And, with rare exceptions, you aren’t going to find seriously athletic linemen even in the third round these days, much less later than that.
Again, exceptions occur. But you need to go for them when they’re available earlier. And now, the Rams, having traded away so many first rounders, won’t be able to upgrade their line for several years, and they don’t have the cap space to grab elite linemen via FA. It’s gonna take a miracle/great scouting to uncover the proverbial diamonds in the rough in both venues.
If they can’t, the Rams O will continue to decline and, as others have mentioned, the Rams’ FO will have wasted the prime years of a generational talent on D.
This. Isn’t. Good.
Billy_TParticipantAnother angle here . . . which has always been among the biggest hurdles for leftists, IMO.
How to achieve the kind of society we pretty much all want . . . with small variations here and there.
???
Mentioned before, but there’s still the old battle, in new forms, between those who believe we have to control “the state” in order to get rid of it, and those who want to skip right over that “stage” and create a non-state society right off the bat.
Of course, not every leftist wants to end up there, either. Some leftists are fine with a different end-point that includes a strong state. Some leftists would be happy with a social democracy, rather than democratic or libertarian or anarchist-socialism. Some leftists would argue that what others see as “social democracy” is really democratic socialism already.
But whatever our desires and hoped-for end-points, the major hurdle has always been how to get there. This is one of my many weaknesses, in that I have no idea. I’m just not good at figuring out the mechanics of the road there, though I have some ideas. My thing has always been more in the “vision” area . . . perhaps because of my background as an artist, poet and wannabe novelist. I’m not an engineer.
The left, in my view, needs both and far more . . . We need visionaries and the nuts and bolts folks who can figure out concrete steps to make those visions come true. I think the vast majority of leftists — and this goes back nearly 400 years — want us to get to the promised land non-violently and through democratic means.
The trick is how.
???
And those various concerns and things we don’t really care about matter in the above too.
Again, your thoughts, etc. etc. are more than welcome.
Billy_TParticipantBilly_TParticipantThanks ZN and Nittany for weighing in here.
The environment and inequality were and are key for me as well. I think I’ve always “naturally” been a Green, and couldn’t understand, even as a little kid, why we allowed mass pollution pretty much everywhere. It made no sense to me then, and it still doesn’t.
I’m not religious — my break with religion was probably my first rebellion in life (roughly, age nine) — but if there’s anything sacred to me, it’s the earth.
Anyway, even when I was apolitical, and didn’t care at all about the usual goings on in American politics, the environment was always a passion. As I got older, however, rampant inequality triggered me, and then I got a concrete taste of it firsthand. I was homeless for a bit when I went back to school to get a Masters. The oddest of times for this, perhaps, it being the Go Go 80s, and me taking classes like French Literature: Existentialism and Alienation . . .
Today? I think my focus is more on the Big Picture, like the philosophy of socialism with an anarchist tilt. That and broad critiques of capitalism itself, in any and all forms. I suppose I’m less interested in the various factions that make up the head, arms and legs of the capitalist system, and more in how they all work together to kill the planet and generate inequality. I don’t think we can get to where we want to go as a society by lopping off parts. In my view, to change metaphors, we need to tear it all down, root, trunk and branch. It all needs to go, as far as I’m concerned . . . . replaced with full democracy, including the economy, from the ground up.
Billy_TParticipantCal,
I’m guessing you already know this, but I think it’s an important clarification.
When conservatives talk about “the left” being at fault for every problem in society, they’re absolutely wrong on a myriad of levels. To begin with, “the left” doesn’t hold power anywhere in America. The center, to center-right dominates. Yes, you have a scattering of center-left individuals, working along side people to their right, with and even smaller scattering of leftists, but I can’t think of a single city or metro area in the nation that is actually run, from the top, by “liberals,” much less leftists.
Leftists are (generally) decidedly to the left of liberal on the political spectrum. You could probably count the number of actual leftists in DC on two hands at present . . . and that’s mostly because of the election of 2018.
So, with that out of the way . . . .
The idea of offering more and more testing isn’t leftist. It’s centrist to conservative. Leftists are egalitarians and small “d” democrats, so if we had our druthers, you wouldn’t have poor kids in the first place, and you definitely wouldn’t have a hierarchy of schools, from rotten to excellent. We’d do everything in our power to make them all excellent . . . and, yes, that would take a radical increase in funding . . . but not to add more testing, and not to try to prepare them to be cogs in the capitalist machine.
There wouldn’t be any capitalist machine any longer, so our rationale for school would be to prepare all kids to reach their fullest potential in life, to be as knowledgeable as possible about the world . . . not so they can get great corporate jobs, but so they live the fullest lives possible, and in a sustainable way, given the natural limits of this planet.
That’s my take, anyway. Hope all is well, Cal.
November 8, 2019 at 8:18 am in reply to: Ukraine bowed to Trump's extortion, until Whistleblower appeared. #107907Billy_TParticipantThis is probably the more relevant section of the article:
Finally bending to the White House request, Mr. Zelensky’s staff planned for him to make an announcement in an interview on Sept. 13 with Fareed Zakaria, the host of a weekly news show on CNN.
Though plans were in motion to give the White House the public statement it had sought, events in Washington saved the Ukrainian government from any final decision and eliminated the need to make the statement.
Word of the freeze in military aid had leaked out, and Congress was in an uproar. Two days before the scheduled interview, the Trump administration released the assistance and Mr. Zelensky’s office quickly canceled the interview.
November 8, 2019 at 8:13 am in reply to: Ukraine bowed to Trump's extortion, until Whistleblower appeared. #107906Billy_TParticipantIn a nutshell, we’ve just learned that Zelensky was booked on CNN to bow to Trump’s wishes and tell the world he was investigating the Bidens and Ukraine’s supposed role in meddling in the 2016 election . . . but the whistleblower complaint became public, and the defense money was finally released in response.
The CNN interview was cancelled.
In short, Trump almost got away with this. We can thank the whistleblower for exposing this corruption, formerly behind closed doors.
Trump, for most of his life, has successfully forced others to cover for his illegal and immoral doings. This is one of those rare times when it didn’t work as planned.
Billy_TParticipantMy thought has been that the troops are irrelevant.
The troops weren’t there defending the Kurds. And Turkey has wanted to wipe them out for as long as I can remember, going back to Reagan, if not Carter. Not just in Syria, but in Turkey itself.
And our troops have been in Syria only 3 or 4 years.
It wasn’t the withdrawal of troops that opened the gates to Turkey’s attack of Kurds.
It was the withdrawal of the US’s diplomatic protection of the Kurds. Trump green-lighted the attack. Nothing to do with troops.
That’s my thinking, anyhow.
It was both. Our troops being there meant Turkey wasn’t going to attack that particular area, because American troops were working side by side with the Kurds. It would have meant war with the US, in effect.
Also: Trump tried to gaslight Americans with “bring the troops home” rhetoric. They didn’t come home. He just repositioned them elsewhere to apparently guard oil reserves, and ordered a few thousand more to go to Saudi Arabia to do the same.
What a world.
Billy_TParticipantAddendum:
Where I think America has acted terribly here, prior to the even more horrific action of giving Turkey the green light . . . is this:
The Kurds did 99% of the fighting and dying in the battles against ISIS. More than 11,000 of them lost their lives. America acted as “support,” providing logistics and air-cover, and some training. But we didn’t, as far as I know, do much direct fighting at all. Total US casualties in Syria are listed in Wikipedia at 76 . . . though this may be low. War deaths usually go up as the years go by. Still, comparisons tell their own story.
I honestly can’t see how it’s “anti-imperialist” to let the Kurds fend for themselves against an invading Turkish army. That makes zero sense to me, and the only thing the author seems to have as an argument is the supposed blanket motivation of “imperialism,” which he now accuses Chomsky of mimicking.
As ZN might say, my vote goes with Chomsky.
Billy_TParticipantI don’t know anything about the author, but I think he’s working overtime on the subject of motives, which really boils down to pure speculation, not known knowns. This, IMO, is something my fellow leftists are prone to. It can all too often color an entire critique in the haze of paranoia, and traps the mind behind that fog. It rarely produces clarity or insight.
Not only is it next to impossible to know another person’s motives, it’s also, generally speaking, irrelevant. What matters in the world is cause and effect. Save the speculation on motives for the couch, IMO.
Cause and effect. Trump had a call with Erdogan and gave him the Green Light to invade Syria, so Turkey could massacre the Kurds and flood Syria with 2 million refugees formerly inside of Turkey. Turkey wanted to both get rid of the burden of those refugees, and do “ethnic cleansing” of a long-time thorn in its side. The Kurds have (rightfully) fought for their own homeland for more than a century, and if they got it, it would mean nations like Turkey, Iraq and Iran would lose key regions.
It wasn’t the US (for a change), being directly imperialist in this case. It was Turkey. And not just imperialist, but genocidal. Chomsky’s right, IMO. The author is wrong. And, to make it all the more clear about this, the Rojava Project is one of the most astounding attempts at anarchist-socialism in the world at present, and Turkey’s invasion will destroy it.
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/11/rojava-syria-kurds-ypg-pkk-ocalan-turkey/
Billy_TParticipantI watched the second video, but not the first one..
====================
Well, i like the first Vid because it reflects the genuine-ness of the affection folks have for Trump. There’s almost a…reverence. At least in this particular bloc of Trump’s base.
w
vWell, he was booed heavily at that event. So I don’t know what it tells us that some folks like him.
Can you take a stab at it, WV? What do you think it is? Cuz, to me, it’s beyond baffling. I think any objective human being would have to look at Trump as a despicable person, and couldn’t admire him, much less have reverence toward him.
Quickly, off the top of my head, he’s a serial liar, with roughly 14,000 of them to his name, just in his first 1000 days; an admitted sexual predator and peeping Tom — at Miss Teen pageants; a six-time bankrupt, bailed out repeatedly by his father and then Russian oligarchs; scammed millions of people on Trump U, his foundation, his steaks, and so on, and failed to pay umpteen contractors, lawyers, etc. etc. He and his family have cheated on their taxes for decades. And then you have his ripping babies out of the arms of their parents, his attacks on migrants, people of color around the world, Muslims . . . his rollback of environmental standards, endangering all of our lives . . . and his planet-killing lust for more and more fossil fuel extractions.
Just for starters.
I don’t get it. Do you? And I understand perfectly well the dislike for the Dems. I dislike them too. But Trump? They think Trump is the answer?
Billy_TParticipantI’m mixing scenarios here in an impossible way, but hopefully it expresses what I mean:
Trump: It’s a beautiful day today, the bluest skies ever, the best sunshine ever. It’s amazingly gorgeous!!
Trump crowd: Gorgeous Day!! Gorgeous Day!! Gorgeous Day!!
Reporters: But, Mr. President, the sky is dark gray and a major storm is predicted within the hour.
Trump: Like I said, it’s a grayest day ever, and this is going to be the greatest storm we’ve ever seen.
Trump crowd: Greatest storm!! Greatest storm!! Greatest storm!!
. . .
It’s all about the delivery, the way a politician delivers the message.
Billy_TParticipantI watched the second video, but not the first one.
Krystal Ball is often really good. And the clip from Sanders was perfect. Yep. That’s the way to talk about M4A. And I think they’re right about the problems with technocratic displays, rather than direct, easily-digested appeals.
But they left out a key for me: I think the projection of certainty and confidence is perhaps more important than anything else to voters. It shouldn’t be. But I think it’s what Americans are most moved by. Trump is able to fake it to make it work. Apparent confidence and certainty is really the only way Republicans get elected, because their actual policy proposals suck far worse than the usual sucky Dem proposals. It’s really not close.
Republicans also win on unity, on not backing down, on sticking to their guns, on lining up on the same page. Dems have a real problem with that, and voters can’t stand that . . . subconsciously and consciously.
Billy_TParticipantCorporate-Capitalism + Capitalist-Christianity = ?
The capitalist-religion-thing kinda helps to super-charge the toxicity of capitalism. Ya know. Jesus as the guy who values ‘hard work’ and ‘keeping yer nose to the grindstone.’ The value of everyone, including immigrants, is judged on “how hard they work.”
Halloween — I have yet to see an American child come to my door dressed up as: Marx, Jesus, Any Intellectual, Any Writer, Any Artist.
This year it was all ‘Super-Heroes’ or Zombies.
I dont know what any of that means.
w
vI think it’s interesting, and incredibly tragic, that Christianity developed as it did, and it does have that toxic effect (all too often) on a large portion of the electorate.
All organized religions tend to veer (wildly) away from the original messenger — real or imagined — though I’d argue there has never been a wider gap than the one between Jesus and his church. Perhaps it’s because it’s lasted so long, was taken over by the Roman Empire, and then exploited by dozens of other empires along the way. But there’s virtually nothing “Christian” about it — at least in its right-wing form.
Jesus, from what little we can gather about him, was a proto-communist and all-around DFH. He and his merry band of proto-communists went from town to town, owning nothing, sharing everything, refusing all remuneration for services rendered, while teaching a gospel of collectivism, community-action, sharing, cooperation and love. He flat out said no rich person could get into heaven or even follow him. They had to give away all their wealth to the poor before they could do that. He obviously would have been spit at by today’s right, kicked out of town, or worse.
“Get a job, you dirty effing hippy!!” would have been the mildest thing he’d hear from much of today’s right-wing.
It’s just incredible how a proto-communist prophet of peace, love and understanding gave birth to a religion of hatred, exclusion and profound selfishness, at least as interpreted by a certain sector of the populace.
Billy_TParticipantAnother recent read applies to the “why” of your question.
The Goodness Paradox, by Richard Wrangham.
It may just be that humans act as we do, at least in part, because we’ve been “domesticated.” We’ve survived because our ability to adapt is so strong. But that ability to adapt may well be the reason why we go along so often with hideous systems of oppression.
Wrangham talks about recent theories regarding that domestication, how it’s been shown in other animals, like minks and wolves (versus dogs), and at least partially involves the reduction of alpha males, seen as threats to the group, village, culture, etc. etc. That sets up a reduction in reactive violence, largely via an increase in proactive violence, if memory serves.
Chimps, for instance, fight at the drop of a hat, and will kill each other in the process. We humans have radically reduced this kind of thing, though, of course it still happens. Road rage, etc. etc. Wrangham and the scientists he cites think the group, in effect, “tames” those impulses through culling the herd. This is something that they believe was not the case in other similar species that predate us.
Fascinating stuff. We basically domesticated ourselves. Stands to reason, to me at least, that this might have something to do with our all too easy acceptance of being herded into our pens, in one form or another. There are some benefits from this, of course. We don’t try to kill each other twenty times a day. But the downside may be we accept far more than we ever should.
Billy_TParticipantZooey, you really should read Martin Hagglund’s This Life. He deals with those issues so well. It’s a deeply philosophical look at our existing system, and why it must be replaced with democratic socialism/secular humanism, as he sees it. Brilliant book.
We’re all born in the capitalist soup, so it’s pretty difficult for most people to envision something else. But I’ve always wondered why we accept others owning the work we do, in absolute, legal terms. I’ve always wondered why anyone would think that the purpose of the economy should be to make a few people rich . . . rather than to provide for everyone‘s needs, first and foremost. Hagglund adds a few other essential rationales:
To work for the Common good
The solve problems
To radically expand free timeOn the latter, he’s not just talking about the time we have when we get home from work, sit down on our couches, and watch TV in relative peace. He’s talking about slashing the time we spend working, and turning that into time we can pursue our most passionate interests, our life’s work . . . or, as Joseph Campbell would say, “finding our bliss.”
Reading between the lines of his book — he lays it out clearly enough so that’s usually pretty easy — capitalism has other ideas when it comes to the free time generated by innovation:
It folds that back into profits for business ownership, and workers still work the same number of hours or more.
Hagglund’s talking about taking the results of new innovations and handing those hours back to citizens instead. All of them.
Self-evident, to me.
Billy_TParticipantNaomi is one of the best voices on ‘the situation.’
She’ll keep writing her books, (god bless her)
and the corporations will continue to destroy the biosphere.
For all the reasons we’ve talked about since 1998 or so. Essentially, the Corporations grew so powerful and their propaganda become so successful,
they dummed-down the American-voters to the point where Salvatore Dali’s Flaming Giraffe is probly an understated metaphor at this point.Forget it Jake, itz the Lorax.
w
vI admire her a ton. And, yeah, your description of the situation is accurate, tragically.
The Burning Giraffe, by Salvador Dali. 1937
-
AuthorPosts
