Rightwing folk singers:
link:http://www.wnyc.org/story/forgotten-history-conservative-folk-music/
—-

Mackeyser wrote:

Well, if the belligerent level of stupid is accelerating as fast as warming… we won’t have to suffer through this too much longer.

————
Hmmm….Maybe in some magical-diabolical way they are related.

Maybe instead of climate change, we should be talking about the…’stupid change’

w
v

link:https://itsvivid.wordpress.com/2017/02/12/the-sacred-the-profane-and-the-fatal-flaw-in-politics/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wordpress%2FPgMC+%28VIVID%29
The sacred, the profane and the fatal flaw in politics

“Everything starts in mysticism and ends in politics.” ~ Charles Péguy

So, politics is broken. Everyone’s standing back, eyeing those sharp-edged pieces scattered over the carpet, quietly horrified that any minute someone might be tempted to pick one up and use it as a weapon…
…..

….
…
…Despite the mainstream reticence though, a global community of thinkers and doers is making stealthy headway through the backwaters, exploring and piloting alternatives, many of which do indeed address the fatal flaw. Most readers here will know where to look for updates on these; I won’t expound at length on them here.

(For those who want links: I’d say those with most promise draw on a combination of commons thinking (see the P2P Foundation, Commons Transition and the writings of David Bollier), land rights (for ecologically regenerative livelihoods), open cooperatives, delegative or liquid democracy, the solidarity economy, localism, Samuel Alexander’s “wild democracy“, Buen Vivir (involving ecological self-determination) (or a different description (PDF) here), Radical Ecological Democracy or Eco Swaraj, the works of Elinor Ostrom, Daniel Christian Wahl’s theories on designing regenerative cultures, James Greyson’s policy switches, Transition and people permaculture.)

The thing is, there’s no shortage of innovative and practical models, nor of pilot implementations. The biggest impediment to their wholesale adoption is the politics of Wetiko. The question, as ever, is how we might replace that monolithic death machine with a million wellsprings of a politics of life…. see link

Agamemnon wrote:

First I wanted to keep our draft choices and draft Lynch.
Second I would have drafted Wentz before Goff.
Third I like Mannion better than Goff.
Cook and Dak were fall back options.
Still I think Goff can be a decent starting QB and I wanted us to draft a QB.

———–
So you like Lynch, Wentz and Mannion better than Goff ?

w
v

zn wrote:

wv wrote:

We really arent that far apart, for me, its more a matter of emphasis and a matter of ‘what audience are you aiming’ at.

Audience? The truth. (As near as that can be found or approached).

I am a leftist because to me the truth leads you there, and that is where there’s MORE truth. I actually believe that.

When I see some blithe jingoistic american dismiss the dark side of our history, I see someone living in myths in order to protect some (to me dubious) core beliefs.

When I see some blithely angry millennial go on about genocide to native people, I basically see just another slogan. It doesn’t move me.

To me, making the USA uniquely awful in its history is just the jingoistic view turned upside down.

It’s not uniquely awful in its history. To pick up on today’s theme, I challenge anyone to spend a day reading widely long and deeply about the story of the Kempeitai’s medical experiments on people. (Which to be fair is more than I’ve ever done…I have never actually finished anything I’ve read about that. Just can’t do it.)

To me the problem is that we need to challenge ourselves to be better. IMO that doesn’t come from inverted dark patriotism (what I call vampire patriotism.) I just don’t have much patience for that. It always strikes me as being more of the same, just upside down. I don’t find it the least bit enlightening or progressive.

.

——————-
Yes, we have some differences. Nothing monumental and i totally respect your approach. Which is as i understand it — no agenda other than the facts as best we can obtain them.

Thats certainly a respectable and honorable approach.

Mine is different though — cause i think your approach ignores the dominant-agendas that suppress lots of things (i know you wont agree that that approach does that) (I also think you create a lot of strawmen by creating some really over-exaggerated stuff among fringe far-rightys and leftys )

I mean if a system is, say, emphasizing Race, distorting gender, and completely suppressing Class (just a hypothetical) — then I would EMPHASIZE Class. Or over-emphasize it, in order to create some breathing space. In order to break through. In order to create some discussion against barriers.

I would not ignore race and gender at all, but I’d spend more energy on class. That does not ‘mythologize’ anything. It just looks at the real history of suppression and ‘accounts for it’. So just as a TACTIC I’d spend more energy on the topic thats been suppressed. I wouldnt ‘distort’ or ignore race or gender.

Now you would just say, Race, Gender, Class, talk about em all in an intersectional related way, and dont emphasize one over another.

w
v

…here’s a quote zn, would agree with, i bet. Dunno about Billy though.

“…In Democracy and Education in the famous chapter on the democratic conception of education, Dewey starts out from the position that the project of human development is not a matter of setting up some conception of an ideal society, but of crafting the future out of what we are now capable of doing and envisioning. ”
link:http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1287&context=eandc

w
v
What then, in the views of Morris and Dewey, is education in the utopian
grain?
Before taking up this question, let us first allow Morris and Dewey to state their objections to capitalist education. In the 1880s, Morris arrived at a version of what contemporary educational sociologists have commonly called the correspondence principle. Dewey had done the same by the early 1900s.
In brief, the principle states that there is a determinant link between the social relations of production and the social relations of education. Education develops forms of social-class identification and values which adjust the learner to work relations and the wider structures and
cultural milieu of class society. Applied to capitalism, the principle has been taken as the foundation of a radical critique of education and it points to the necessity of a classless society if education is to be of, by and for everyone.9

As Morris states it:At present all education is directed towards the end of fitting people to take their places in the hierarchy of commerce—these as masters, those as William Morris and John Dewey: Imagining Utopian Education
workmen. The education of the masters is more ornamental than that of
the workmen, but it is commercial still; and even at the ancient universi
ties learning is but little regarded, unless it can in the long run be made to
pay. Due education is a totally different thing from this, and concerns itself
in finding out what different people are fit for, and helping them along the
road which they are inclined to take.

People are “educated” to become workmen or the employers of workmen,
or the hangers-on of the employers; they are not educated to become
men With this aim in view, the conditions under which true education can go
on are impossible. For the first and most necessary of them are leisure and
deliberation; and leisure is a thing which the modern slaveholder will by no
means grant to his slave as long as he grants him rations; when the leisure
begins the rations end. Constant toil is the only terms on which they are
to be had. Capitalism will not allow us the leisure, either for education or
the use of it. Slave labor and true education are irreconcilable foes, for the
latter means the continuous and duly balanced development of our faculties, whether in the school, the workshop, or the field.11Clearly, Morris thinks that education in capitalist society does not, and can-not, constitute true or liberal education. This impossibility in…see link

• This reply was modified 9 years, 3 months ago by wv.

zn wrote:

Critique doesn’t have to be the premise of a deduction that concludes, “this, then, is what needs to be done.” It should be an instrument for those for who fight, those who resist and refuse what is….It doesn’t have to lay down the law for the law. It isn’t a stage in a programming. It is a challenge directed to what is.”

I agree with that.

One small step for man. Endless critique for mankind.

———–
Ok, but in that post what i hear is how
much you LOVE Hillary.

Thats what i hear.

w
v