He is, without a doubt, the toughest subscriber to In These Times. Standing 5’ 9” tall, weighing 240 pounds and sporting a shaved head, Jeff “The Snowman” Monson looks like a cartoon ready to pop, a compressed giant of crazy shoulders, massive biceps and meaty forearms. When he sneers, people shudder. When he sweats, they turn away. When he’s angry,… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (45)Page 1 of 1 pagesUgh, getting beat up and beating up people for money. Personally i find such a “sport” to be reprehensible. But this is a free country and obviously opinions vary. Ugh.
Capitalism is the worst economic system known. Except for all the rest.
Posted by wolf on Apr 21, 2006 at 10:38 AM WHAT?
“our economic system, capitalism, is structured so that it only benefits a small percentage of very wealthy people.”
The standard of living in this capitalistic country is such that even the poorest households in this country have a television, phone, cell phones, food, healthcare.
And don’t tell me poor people don’t have healthcare. My aunt is a county health worker and even goes to people’s HOMES trying to get them to take advantage of all sorts of health care, and they don’t even want to get up and come to the door for FREE care. The county advertises free checkups, even handing out flyers on the streets, churches, shelters, subsidized housing areas, and maybe one person in this town of 50K will come. But I digress…
The profit motive has driven the creation of things people need, including life-saving drugs, hospitals, food production, cars, clothing, etc. Infant mortality in this country is low. Single mothers can receive money for housing, childcare, education...all because of the taxes paid by people who “make money.”
So I would say that capitalism has benefitted anyone in this country who chooses to take advantage of opportunity.
Sounds like this guy is just trying to say “Aren’t I a great guy? I CARE.”
Posted by oleofritter on Apr 21, 2006 at 10:50 AM Monson is a fascinating individual. I like his style. I just get so angry when I see how oppressive our society has become. We can’t even exercise free speech without secret service men knocking on your door. Isn’t this why we opposed communism for so many years?
Posted by Epistrophy on Apr 21, 2006 at 10:17 PM Nothing wrong with tooting your horn. This guy IS great. We all have something socially redeeming about us that we can announce to the world, if given the chance. Monson; a champion fighter and a Masters degree - the warrior philosopher. And nothing wrong with people voluntarily beating each other up - people in our society are “beat up” a lot worse, and not voluntarily. Fifty million Americans without health insurance, tax cuts for the poor and the middle class that are a diversion from the profiting wealthy and political class, the unfinished and still ignored plight of the underclass after Katrina, the list is endless. Monson has a legitimate gripe. If only more Americans protested a little more about what has remained of this country during the last five years, what’s been destroyed by our Moron in Chief and the neocon cabal. But we dare not protest too strongly since they’ve literally got our number so most of us look straight ahead, keep our nose clean hopeful for 2008. But sadly, the 2008 elections probably won’t bring much relief - the Democrats also seem to have tunnel vision and stale ideas.
Posted by galileo on Apr 22, 2006 at 2:31 AM winterchestnut
I get the bbc radio here in frogland—just heard that cuba sent 32 field hospitals to pakistan after the quakes. Much appreciated apparently.
Maybe an example that there are other possibilities and motivators than .................................profit ?
Posted by frog on Apr 22, 2006 at 4:46 AM Bitter winter, rotted Chestnut:
You are so full of bullshi*t: You wrote:
.........And don’t tell me poor people don’t have healthcare. My aunt is a county health worker ..
Ah, almost verbatim that right wing nonsense that riles up idiots like you. While you’re slamming lazy poor people, they fleece you to finance their trillion $ war in Iraq.
Gee, while feeling all high and mighty, did you ever stop to wonder how much money you’d have if they just stuck to spending a few billion on poor people, and never spent the trillion $ in Iraq for ABSOLUTELY NOTHING?
Hell, the price of gas is $3. I thought a free Iraq was supposed to stop that!!!!
Your fantasy ideas about poor people are idiotic and false.
Millions of poor people do not have health care. I’ll skip the #s though. Since it’s a matter of faith for you, not reality.
If taxes are too high and aggravating your constipation, then blame your Repugnican politician for taxing you to pay for a trillion $ war that has given us $3 gas
I think it’s somewhere like for every $1 we spend on the poor, $10 go to Iraq! Yet like a fool, you think the best way to save money is to take it from the poor.
Oh an in regards to what your aunt say......Those people that most often refuse it are the “mentally ill” forced to live on their own thanks to cutbacks. The county sends people out to check on them, because they cannot take care of themselves.
The outreach she is talking about is FOR THE CHILDREN. Poverty is ground zero for dysfunctional families, and it’s the children who suffer the most.
The least society can do to stop the cycle of poverty is try to ensure those children get the healthcare their parents can’t or won’t provide.
The county advertises free checkups, even handing out flyers on the streets, churches, shelters,...../i>
You make it sound like they’re recruiting people. The truth is, that’s where the poor go, when they run out of options, you don’t have a lick of common sense do you.
<i>The profit motive has driven the creation of things people need, including life-saving drugs, hospitals, food production, cars, clothing..
There is nothing wrong with making a profit. EXCEPT when that becomes the only goal that matters. Like when it comes to the price of gas or price of drugs. Who cares what’s discovered if no one can buy the stuff.
Infant mortality in this country is low.
OK I have to break it to you, but the people who keep wearing that t-shirt with “I’m with stupid” when their with you are doing it because they are with you. Hello moron, the United States ranks near the bottom for industrialized nations. We have consistently lack in the bottom quarter for decades.Single mothers can receive money for housing, childcare, education. because taxes paid by people who “make money.”
god, the depth of your utter idiocy is breathtaking. There is no need to reply. Your words say it all.
This guy sounds very sincere. You on the other hand sound like a bitter, angry moron. Who is a sucker for any political trash talk that starts out “blame the poor people, especially the lazy, single mothers.”
Posted by johnnyincentx on Apr 22, 2006 at 5:49 PM This guy rules! (And, technically, that’s impossible for an anarchist!)
I don’t tend to pay too much attention to MMA. But it’s cool, lots of ground fighting and tell me those dudes are not conditioned. And this guy is sharp:
“If there is any contradiction, it’s that we’re part of the capitalist machine, and I’m really just a wage slave.”
And that shows he really understands class consciousness.
Posted by TheoPapathanasis on Apr 22, 2006 at 6:31 PM WOLF:
Capitalism is in grave danger in this country, and the threat to it does NOT come from the left wing or socialist tendencies.
The threat to capitalism comes from the corporate classes and their efforts towards changing our system of Gov’t. into a Plutocracy, Gov’t. by the wealthy for the wealthy.
Only a fool would take comfort in the fact that “capitalism” protects Americans.
In a plutocracy, only the corporate class Capitalism exists only in that “private companies and private individuals” own the means of production as opposed to communism. Where Gov’t. does.
Capitalism can only survive. If competition is permitted to direct the market place.
However TEam Bush dislikes competition. It’s an unnecessary hassle that stifles making a profit.
Profit is what corporations live for. How or why are irrelavent.
The best way to make a profit is NOT to make something better or sell at lower prices.
Rather the best way to guarantee a profit is to prevent competition.
Thanks to Pres. Bush Corporate interests have gotten virtually all their wishlist items.
Just how much Team Bush hates competition can be seen how they skipped the competitive bidding process for Iraqi contractors and Katrina.
I am amazed that such supposed disciples of capitalism think “competition” is a hinderance to getting things done. Wow.
Now more than ever major corporations are happily morphing the laws and regulations that were designed to ENSURE competition are turned on their head and used to stifle competition. Or better yet, laws that remain that guarantee a level playing field go uninforced,
Oour copyright laws are more and more a deadly weapon to kill any chance competition can grow. Software is a great example. I bet you didn’t know that you rarely actually “buy” software.
Whenever possible corporate interests cheat when forced to play the game of capitalism by importing low wage illegal workers, and avoiding hiring Americans, because we want fair wages. Compared to who - well the illegals of course.
Thanks to permanent subsidies to oil companies, agrabusiness Etc. newer better ways to do things by new companies fail to ever develop, because thanks to corporate welfare. The big corp. can afford to do it poorly.
The list is long. Yeah capitalism is the best economic system the world has ever known. It’s too bad that your Team Bush seems to detest it, because if forced to compete. Their chances of losing are always pretty damn good, and recently look almost certain.
Posted by johnnyincentx on Apr 22, 2006 at 9:31 PM chestnut
A country where healthworkers knock on doors to invite people to take advantage of what is socially available is not 10000000% Capitalist. That is Socialism and must be expunged from the system.
That Healthworker aunt of yours should resign from her job, as being engaged in traitorous UnAmerican Activity, since she is not working for the Profit Motive..
Until the USA reduces taxes for the rich sufficiently to ensure that there is absolutely NO money for social workers, your country is going to go further down the pan.
WARMAKING must come first as the primary concern for all true red-blooded right-thinking Americans, whatever the cost.
If your aunt can drive a car, she can drive a Humvee,----- in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, or Venezuela or Congo or Nigeria or Equatorial Guinea or anywhere else where there is a little oil or other Profit to be made by someone who will NOT be blown up by an IED.
I could drive a Humvee too, no problem at 60. Hell, had coffee this afternoon with a French Resistance Underground vet of 1940-1944 - he could drive a Humvee, too, at 86 this year.
Neither you, your aunt, I, my Resistance hero friend, or Jeff Monson, are even remotely considering it worthwhile to die for GWB , Halliburton, Carlyle, Lockheed, Raytheon, and suchlike scum.
My 85 year-old friend was not in the Resistance for the profit-motive. He survived the dismantling of two groups by the Gestapo, with torture and executions of the unlucky, and was in his third group on 6june1944.
So shall we try to be honest, and admit there is more to life than idealised mythical and mythologised economic systems that are supposedly better than all potential others ?
Posted by frog on Apr 23, 2006 at 5:37 PM johnnyincentx answers wolf:
“Yeah capitalism is the best economic system the world has ever known.”
This od course does not imply it is the best economic system the world will know. For example, living in antiquity, one could confidently declare:
“Slavery is the best economic system the world has ever known.”
And so on.
Now, I agree with johnnyincentx that the Bush administration openly works for the plutocrats. Hell, at this point, the Republicans might be termed the party of capital, but the Democrats are just as dependent and, I remind you, the 3rd way of Clinton was the way of neoliberalism, which is the way of untrammelled capitalism.
So you can’t blame it on Bush. You seem to be describing a kind of idealized, ever equally capitalism that’s reminiscent of Adam Smith’s “nation of shopkeepers.” However, accumulation and monopoly are part and parcel of capitalist dynamics.
Posted by TheoPapathanasis on Apr 25, 2006 at 12:31 AM this guy is not too smart outside of his business, at which he’s very smart. he wonders what the homeless lady outside his hotel did to the people who build hotels? nothing. but they did nothing to her either. they build hotels for people who can afford to live in the hotel. they dont force anyone to sleep on the street nor do they force anyone to stay at the hotel. people have different abilties, and yes, some people are lucky enough to live in countries where there is a better organized system of law and investment than others. having children you can’t afford also makes no sense. why do people make silly decisions like having kids they can’t afford and then expect someone else to pay for these hungry mouths? Maybe if you’re a Christian, redistribution of wealth makes sense, but what’s the morality of it if you beleive the Universe is morally neutral? professional fighters may do their job well, but philosophers we should follow???????????
Posted by knocko on Apr 25, 2006 at 2:17 AM THEO:
Get Real!
If you cannot see the dramatic difference 6yrs of Team Bush has made in regards to our economy, the wholesale rot that has spread like wildfire into the basic underpinnings of what keeps us going, there is no point is discussing anything.
Only a person on the extreme lunatic fringe would consider Team Bush, it’s agenda and goals no different or worse than Team Clinton’s.
For such stark and dramatic changes to occur in such a short time is evidence enough for a reasonable person to understand there are fundamental, profound differences between Bush and Clinton.
Capitalism does not commit the crime you talk about.
The crime is committed in capitalism’s name by those who accumulate wealth. Once they do this, thier desire to keep it causes them to despise competition. For competition is the greatest threat to their wealth
To curb competition, they manipulate the system to cripple or kill any viable alternative to what they push. This is a broad generalization that fits almost any type of production.
It’s the human element, not the system that’s at fault.
And when it comes to the human element, Bush is to blame for the rapid decay in all aspects.
He pushes something called “crony capitalism.” Where competition against the established industrialists/capitalist class is verbotin, and all laws are interpreted or written to make it as easy as possible to keep their wealth free from any threats, especially competition.
No doubt you blithely ignore Pres. Clinton had to deal with a FRight wing congress for most of his years in office. This FRight wing congress which is now part of Team Bush, did its best to undercut his beliefs in Social Capitalism. Thanks to backing from a suddenly empowered FRight wing press machine, they were able to alter his course of action far more rightward than he would have done on his own.
Posted by johnnyincentx on Apr 25, 2006 at 4:25 AM Theo:
No this guy is definitely brighter than average for one reason only. He tries to think. I can’t say that about you.
The mindless drivel that you try to pass off ass “thoughtful reflection” is actually sheer idiocy. Either this idiocy is purposeful, a result of your obvious attempt to reconstruct his words to provide you a straw man to set your argument agains, or you are seriously deficient in reading comprehension.
His comments in regards to the homeless lady with kids is “figurative speech.”
Yet you respond to it “literally” and you do so in a way that makes it clear you think you are a “superior mind and a superior thinker!!!!” Believe me <empt is not even a good effort.
Your literal answer to your mistaken understanding of his figurative speech is mind-numbingly stupid. Were you channelling both Ann Coulter and Hannetty at the same time? For until now I thought only those two insipid idiots of the far right could so glibly justify and decide any normal decent human response to this situation as unnecessary, thanks to the “neutrality of capitalism.”
Your comment about “why have kids when you can’t afford them” makes it clear you don’t live in any reality shared with normal people. It’s so common sense, and so utterly devoid of any sense of “real life experience” sexually or otherwise.
For it’s rare that people ever “decide” such things when they need to (even in wealthy countries) and thanks to the uptight sexual culture virtually everywhere, the type of planning you think so sensible is rarely possible.
Finally your blithe assumption that she “chose” to have kids is not only idiotic, its purposeful evil.
No doubt you cannot comprehend the life of a homeless woman in a developing country. No doubt that you cannot comprehend the possibility that she had NO choice in the matter; that her religion probably prohibits her from getting an abortion; that her family cast her out as a whore for getting pregnant; that the children were products of rape, no consensual sex.
The list of probably potential reasons why this woman has children, and why none of them are due to choice is quite long.
Yet to you, because you are a moron, will always conclude. She made the choice she has to live with it. Of course even if she did, the children suffer.
If reading the first part of your astoundingly stupid post didn’t make it clear to anyone with half a brain how utterly self-serving and stupid you are, then your closing sure will.
It is NOT SOLELY a Christian characteristic to care for the poor. For the Western world, those teachings come from Judiasm, and exist in Islam as well.
Your bias stands pretty naked when you lump all efforts to help the less fortunate under the the banner “transfer wealth.” A far more accuarate and effective way to help the poor would be to remove all the barriers that exist to their accumulation of wealth.
The universe may be morally neutral, but we as living breathing human beings are only neutral IF WE CHOSE to be so.
Only a purposefully blind elitist would have the gall to extend this neutrality to “economic systems”
The universe was not made by man, but economic systems are
Therefore to infer as you do, that the economics that resulted in this homeless woman with two kids is a result of a “neutral” system thanks to the universe being neutral is utterly wrong, and constitutes the final irrefutable proof, that YOU are the one who is not too bright, as well as a self-righteous fool. Who spends what little thinking capacity he has figuring out why he doesn’t need to care about anyone but himself.
Posted by johnnyincentx on Apr 25, 2006 at 5:07 AM johnnyincentx - so many words, so little understanding, but so much passion!
Posted by wolf on Apr 25, 2006 at 8:26 AM Wolf:
Clearly you are referring to yourself. I know what I’m talking about, and what I believe in.
Posted by johnnyincentx on Apr 25, 2006 at 12:40 PM johnnyincentx:
I believe that second comment of yours was directed to one knocko and not me. Are you always this much of charmer or have I caught you on one of your winning days?
If you were familiar with third way economics and neoliberalism (which you are not), then you might have had something to say to me (which you don’t).
Of course, I am aware of the domestic economic devastation caused by the Bush administration. I am also aware of the tremendous foreign economic damage that’s been done in the name of neoliberalism. Perhaps you noticed the leftward shift in “Latin American” politics as of late. Guess what? That’s a reaction to the failures of the Clintonite/Blairite “third way.” As for Democrats’ criticisms of Clintonite economics, I recommend you read Thomas Frank’s “One Market Under God.” Frank is a Democrat and a contributing editor at Harper’s, a publication I suppose you would consider over there on the “extreme lunatic fringe.”
You might look at Michael Meeropol’s book, “Surrender: How the Clinton Administration Completed the Reagan Revolution.” Meeropol is the son of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg, and I further imagine that would be enough for you to place him on the “extreme lunatic fringe” as well.
As for Bush/Clinton similarities outside of economics, I recommend you take a look at former NSA Director and Democrat Philip Bobbit’s book “The Shield of Achilles” for the chapter in which he goes through a quote by quote comparison of both presidents and their policies, determining there is little difference between the two. Bobbit’s book is about the idea of a market state supplanting the nation state, an ideal fully in accordance with the reality of neoliberalism and global plutocracy.
I could go on and on here listing a veritable bookshelf for you, but really, it’s not my responsibility to educate you, but for you to extricate yourself from whatever ideological morass you so clearly flounder about in and start working things out for yourself.
There is actually quite a bit of evidence to show that Bush’s administration dovetails nicely with Clinton’s both economically and as regards foreign policy. I imagine all this stuff is some kind of lunatics’ heresy for your ears and judging by your responses to both knocko and myself, see no reason to expect much more from your repertoire beyond such fine debating points as the one preceding my response here, which seems to amount to:
“I know you are, but what am I?”
In closing, I ask you not to bore me with an attempt to prove that you are in fact right and I am in fact wrong, but to simply consider that those who see things in a different light than you do might be sober-minded individuals with well-reasoned and informed opinions.
Thanks for your time, and, incidentally, yes, I know what crony capitalism is all about.
Posted by TheoPapathanasis on Apr 25, 2006 at 3:47 PM btw: For clarification’s sake, I am no fan of Bobbit’s thesis. I just picked that chapter as an interesting source for comparing the two presidents’ rhetoric.
Posted by TheoPapathanasis on Apr 25, 2006 at 3:54 PM johnny
So much passion, much of it well-directed, but some way off-beam.
Read the real theo, and think !
Posted by frog on Apr 26, 2006 at 12:31 AM TheoPapathanasis:
In one regard you’re right, I did mean to reply to knocko, not you.
So why did you reply as if I did actually respond to what I said as if I directed it to you?
Nothing you said agrees with knocko’s nonsense, or for that matter woolph
So why make common cause with them?
Since you are a lefty, I will do what you could not bring yourself to do in all your high and mighty pretention which is act like an adult.
If you had brought it to my Attn. I would have said yeah, I guess I did, sorry.
Instead lacking the confidence in your recognition of the obvious, you replied as you did, and made some hilariously stupid comments (I do know what neoliberalism is) and share some books you think are incredibly insightful and prove you are intelligent, because you read them.
Reading between the lines made me ask myself a question. Just why does theo hold these books in such high regard?Well because they agree with his own view of things! If they agree with Theo, they must be right. Yeah, uh huh. So much for being a thinking man.
In regards to Clinton and Bush being cut from the same cloth (so to speak)
It depends as I said, on where you sit your butt down on the political spectrum. To extremist ideologues on either side, they are twins.
The closer one moves in towards the common ground the less alike they become.
I learned a long time ago, the political battle is not won or lost based on how may ideologue extremists one wins over.
For their beliefs/biases are not a matter of right/wrong, fact/fiction. Rather they are a matter of faith, and I don’t mean religious.
The books you proffer are opinion pieces. I try to stick to the facts. Doing so ensures I get the facts without bias for or against my views.
You might try it sometime. Of course I’m assuming that your NOT recommending any books that disagree with you as evidence that you consider them not worthwhile reading and thus don’t read them. LOL
Posted by johnnyincentx on Apr 26, 2006 at 8:42 AM johnny,
Take a deep breath and calm down. Like assholes, we all have opinions. For all of us, our opinions are based on a limited collection of facts, unexamined as well as rational beliefs and affective loyalties. It isn’t necessary for everyone to have perfect agreement in order to arrive at consensus, but rather to have a reasonable willingness to change one’s opinion in the light of new facts, openness to the awareness of the reasons that underlie the beliefs of others, and respect for one’s opponent’s feelings of connectivity.
It is somewhat personally cathartic to pound out ad homines, but I humbly suggest you take the time to edit them out of your posts before you send. More light and less heat is always an aid to advancing a dialog.
I like the awareness that you and Theo both express that the reality of economic activity is not exclusively either capitalist or socialist, but a mix of elements of each, as well as the elements of corporate mercantilism, and even anarcho-syndicalism.
I have the somewhat intuitive perspective that the mercantilist global order is more a threat to what you describe as shopkeeper capitalism or even traditional industrial capitalism than either socialist institutions like Social Security, universal health care, public education, or inheritance and progressive income taxes, or emerging anarchist forms of social organization based on concepts of participatory democracy and economics like worker owned co-operatives, strong ESOPs, social activist collectives or co-housing developments and intentional communities. It seems to me that more small businesses being formed today are licensed franchises of mega corporations than truly independent competitive enterprises. Those that exist seem more and more dependent on corporate contracts than round about expenditures and incomes derived from mutual interaction. Those individualized businesses that do succeed, in order to attract investment, are driven to corporatize along the franchise model or transfer their production to China or other low wage countries through corporate agencies, and though that might be a windfall of wealth for the entrepreneur who starts such a business, those businesses get sucked up into the mercantilist investment and banking institutions that end up dominating all the economic and managerial decisions.
I’d like to hear what knocko and Wolfram have to say in respect to this kind of global consideration, rather than constrained by their apparently over-simplified ideological views. Come on guys, step up to the plate. Don’t just bark from the sidelines.
I’m more interested in how Monson manifests his Anarchist views in his own economic choices, given that he is competing in such a dominately capitalistic venue. I wish Thompson had questioned him a bit more on that aspect in his story, as well as using his public visibility to promote anarchist views.
Posted by luminous beauty on Apr 27, 2006 at 10:20 AM Luminous Beauty:
Great post.
Those rants are a style I reserve for “right-wing ideologues” on this board who pretends to be interested in discussing, but is actually only to make lefties spin their heels.
Like all extremist idiologues, the positions they take and why they do are a result of faith-like thinking which they then try to back up with cherry picked and spun “fact-like” data in order to waste the left’s time as we try to refute their nonsense.
The group of FRight wingers that visit this board, do not respect anyone’s views. They are indulging their desire for Attn. at our expense. Responding to their illogical, faith-driven reasoning further re-enforces their own feelings that they are right
To humor them with “logical and sensible arguments” will not NEVER sway or change their views.
So thus my outrageous, bombastic responses. If they cease getting the satisfying responses, they’ll leave.
There are many open-minded conservatives, but the ones who visit this board are anything but. There is no discussing with FRight wing ideologues, so why try.
Extreme left-wing ideologues are similar, However, generally speaking, since I usually support most of their goals, I’m on their side. I see absolutely no reason to treat them similiarly.
Also, This is a “house on the left.” This is supposed to be a free-space for lefties to exchange ideas, not FRight wingers with their drivel.
This is not censorship either. Since no one is prevented from posting. Free speech does not have “courtesy” requirement. Otherwise we’d see a lot more “nice talk” from the FRight wingers.
Isn’t it time the left learn that “playing nice” is a losing tactic? When parlayed against the bullying tactics of the FRight wing? Only similar tactics should be used to respond. The faux intellectualism that originated this “always play nice” response nonsense needs to be corrected.
Intellectual discussion historically have been extremely animated and emotionally charged affairs. Only in the USA is it expected that such discussions be polite. And in the USA, only the left seems to adhere to that anymore.
I am so tired of seeing this leftie or that leftie, proving he’s fair and unbiased by attacking someone on our side, and agreeing with some FRight wing idiot.
Thus my defence of Clinton. Sure I had some major disagreements with him, but what purpose is there in making common cause with FRight wingers in their criticism of Clinton?
There is no quid pro quo on the FRight wingers part.
In regards to Theo, I only responded so harshly in response to the condensation-laen post. How come you didn’t see it???
It was uncalled for. Since he responded that way, EVEN THOUGH, he realized I had made a mistake in who I addressed my post to, and replied as if I did mean to reply to him. Prior to that post, I had agreed with his previous posts.
Furthermore his response exemplafied something I detest, a dyed in the wool leftie, proving his open-mindedness by making common cause with players on the opposing team.
Politics more than ever is played like a game. There are two sides. No one is neutral.
Anyone on either team who presumes neutrality can potentially be even more damaging than a member of the opposing team. Since their neutrality prevents them from supporting what should be their team.
It prevents them from lending their support when its most needed (Ralph Nader comes to mind) all in order to prove they are fair and open-minded. And they do this while asking nothing from the FRight wing in return.
Posted by johnnyincentx on Apr 27, 2006 at 12:46 PM Johnny,
I understand the frustration you feel about the wing-nut trolls trying to disrupt and side-track discussion in nominatively leftist ‘houses’, as you put it. However, I rather see flaming on them as giving them the idea that they are justified in believing leftists are all emotion and no reason. It is fundamental to the juvenile nature of internet trolls that eliciting an angy response is for them a sign of success. My own strategy is to take whatever limited ideas they present as a starting point to demonstrate the semi-rational and over-simplified ideological philosophies they embrace. On one hand, it befuddles them, and on the other, it creates room for progressive dialog. Keeping it as impersonal as possible, creates a further sense of dissatisfaction in their tiny minds. It may even lead them to conclude they might be wrong about something. [ha-ha]
Then again, sometimes it’s just good fun to screw with them. I personally like to do this with Jay Cline, who is an asshat of the first order. He is currently stretching his limited discursive powers on the “A Primary Concern” thread. He is just about ripe to pluck. Feel free to go over there and take a whack at him, if you’d like.
I really don’t understand your argument with Theo. I think he is right about Clinton and Bush being cheek to jowl within the narrow spectrum of neo-liberalism. Not identical but with very little space, if any, between them. Domestically, they are much more different, but if you notice, Theo is posting from Greece, where US domestic politics might be more undifferentiable due to distance, as per your perspective metaphor. I do think foriegn based viewers may have a bit better perspective on US foriegn policy than we do here in the USA. After all, they have to live with it, and to us it’s much more of an academic exercise.
As far as your criticism of his citing only authors that he agrees with, that goes quite opposite of what he has actually said. I believe it is important to learn from all points of view, particularly those who disagree with us. After all, if we on the left are to ever triumph politically, by which I mean establish a society wherein all people can grow and prosper in a free, just, and egalitarian, harmonious and sustainable set of relationships, and within the limited resources of the planet upon which we live, it will depend on the skills of positive suasion that we are able to develop. You can’t force anyone to think and act ethically, even one’s self.
Posted by luminous beauty on Apr 27, 2006 at 2:53 PM luminous beauty: Thank you for your kind mediation.
Actually, I am a Greek-American, dual national and overall internationalist who has lived many years in both Europe and America.
Posted by TheoPapathanasis on Apr 27, 2006 at 6:21 PM johnnycentrix:
Look, you are simply being rude. As for those books I hit you on the head with, when you say:
“Of course I’m assuming that your NOT recommending any books that disagree with you as evidence that you consider them not worthwhile reading and thus don’t read them.”
In fact, I do not wholly agree with Frank (although I love the guy as a political writer) and disagree 100% with Bobbit, who I think flirts with some very dangerous stuff. I used them as examples of mainstream books that expressed ideas you claimed were “extreme lunatic fringe,” thank you. Somehow though, you claim to “share” some of them. If so, why are you reading all this “extreme lunatic fringe” stuff?
I just don’t get it.
I am not making “making common cause with players on the opposing team” either. I have nothing to do with them. However, your responses to them do illustrate your skill level. FYI, I disagree with knocko’s post and my original post here was to express my disagreement with both you and Wolf. Why? I think capitalism is bad news and both of you think it’s great. On that score, I think you and wolf probably have more in common with one another than either of you do with me. As far as I am concerned, in the grand scheme of things, you guys are actually on the same team, capitalism’s team.
I am an anticapitalist (and so are lots of other perfectly sane people).
I do not have a problem with you at all. I am being a bit, well, mean, but it’s all in good fun. I assure you, I am not always particularly polite either. It’s my personal modus operandi to keep things civil until someone really pisses me off. I am a patient and understanding man, however, cross the line and the gloves come off. When it comes to slinging words and ideas, logic and refutations, I am just cold-blooded and merciless. Sometimes I really let it rip and go for the kill. I prefer not to go there and think most of these conflicts are unproductive and easily avoided. Okay?
So try being a little nicer and you might find I am a genuinely nice person.
I join frog, luminous beauty and Wolf in acknowledging that you are a passionate poster. Personally, I think you can take that energy and do a lot more good with it than worrying about guys like knocko. Sure, on a few other boards I beat the hell out of those types from time to time both to refute their nonsense and (I admit it) for my own personal amusement.
Now, as for “making common cause with FRight wingers in their criticism of Clinton"… Look, dude, my criticisms of Clinton are very different from theirs. I criticize Clinton for reifying all those neoliberal policies, whereas, economically speaking, they are probably pretty much okay with that part of Clinton’s legacy.
Incidentally, you don’t want to say “condensation-laden” but “condescension-laden.” Condensation, as I’m sure you know, is the liquid formed from a gas or vapour. (See? That’s me actually being condescending.) I think if you take a look at our exchange, you’ll see that I did not patronize you; I simply corrected you and defended myself against that “extreme lunatic fringe” insult, which, if you think about it, was a very condescending thing of you to say. Guess what? You started it, buddy, and if you think you are big enough to come out swinging, you better be big enough to take your lumps.
Again, thanks for your time here. I’d like to say it’s been pleasant, but that would be untrue. I am trying to be as amicable as I can with you, but I get the feeling that you are very beholden to a POV and more than a little grumpy. That’s cool. That’s you. I hope you think about what I am saying. I am not here to convince you of anything or proselytize. What I do hope is that you’ll be less quick to crack on people because I assure you, some of us are more than capable of dishing it out too and, to tell you the truth, those sorts of online altercations really bore me as of late.
Posted by TheoPapathanasis on Apr 27, 2006 at 6:22 PM Theo:
Your assumptions are very interesting, and leave me confident I responded rightly the first time.
So you really think I did NOT get you were anti-capitalist? LOL
You actually are totally blind to the breathtaking pretension?
You are so full of it.Thanks for the laugh though.
I mean no intelligent person could take such post seriously. It’s a perfect example of the things that have made the left wing ideologues intolerable to the normal human being.
For someone who thinks he knows strategy, you completely miss mine.
If you did, you’d understand how stupid is to assume what I said about capitalism was a one dimensional reflection of my own personal views.
You read everything I wrote literally? if I don’t come across that very often. LOL. Literal interpreations are not a sign of great intelligence, despite what you think.
Every comment you make about me assumes that I said what I said in relative ignorance to “your” vast knowledge. LOL
There in lies the reason why you are so wrong, and why you “just don’t get it.” .
The fact that you completely miss why I say what I say and how I say it is better proof than anything I could say that you are grossly overestimating your comprehension skills.
Of course, no matter how bright someone is, assuming instead of asking is going to constantly result in misunderstanding.
I guess it’s beneath you to ask for clarification. Since that would mean you didn’t get it, you’re rhetorical admittance to just that notwithstanding.
Are you really completely blind to the irony in your correcting my grammar??? LOL
Surprise Theo there are couple of other very good although rarely used definitions of the word, and both can work. Though one definition would be rather oblique.
Of course you assume I must have meant what you thought, because if you are not aware of another definition of the word that makes it work the way I used it, then there is NO way I could have used it that way.
In a grammatical nod to the term you thought I used, I phrased it the way I did.
I’ll leave it to you to figure out. After all you’re the grammar man.
you think I should be nicer, well I think you should stop being so utterly pretentious, assumptive and judgmental.
If you want someone to be nice, you shouldn’t insult them.
You are so blind to your ways, you think insulting me like it is your right due to your superior intelligence. It’s no wonder you “don’t get it.”
I have a feeling you don’t get a lot of things, but aren’t even aware of it, because whatever assumption you make seems so right, you don’t bother to verify.
The fact that you would write such a post, and write it unaware of how someone could take your post as an insult, is the best evidence one could have of who is has unrecognized limitations.
Posted by johnnyincentx on Apr 27, 2006 at 10:11 PM Bang my palms with spikes and call me the king of the Jews!
You really are being a jerk.
“Correcting” your grammar was meant in jest, hence the parenthetical comment. Do you look for offence and personal slight everywhere?
How trollish.
I see being civil or playful gets nowhere with you.
You are a keyboard belligerent.
Now, the little blurb to the right of this window says “Please be respectful in your comments...” and I am trying with you. Really trying. After trying to be nice. You, on the other hand, have shown no respect whatsoever throughout this entire “exchange.”
As for this:
“If you want someone to be nice, you shouldn’t insult them. “
Hello. You started this nonsense, which I keep trying to defuse.
Again, let’s take a look at how “respectful” you are “in you comments”
("Only a person on the extreme lunatic fringe would consider ...")
Charming, that was. That’s how you addressed me after I tried to open a conversation. Afterwards, as any reader of this thread can determine, after that was challenged, you threw a temper tantrum. I even asked you not to start one of these “I am right, you are wrong” exercises in online idiocy, yet you persisted.
(“The fact that you would write such a post, and write it unaware of how someone could take your post as an insult, is the best evidence one could have of who is has unrecognized limitations.”)
Yes. I am mocking you in the same breath as I am trying to get you laugh at yourself for this bizarre outburst of yours and simply move on and maybe try having a real conversation.
The best you had got as a comeback was “LOL. Thanks for the laugh. You are a joke. Of course I knew all that stuff…” whereas your posts inspire in me the sort of embarrassment I feel for an actor on stage fumbling his lines and shuffling his feet.
I still want to know how we “share” these books that present a position you consider lunatic fringe. You contradicted yourself.
“You read everything I wrote literally?”
No, I took it figuratively, you shitwit. Among other things, you wrote Wolf:
("Capitalism can only survive. If competition is permitted to direct the market place.")
What? Was that some sort of subtle comment filled with subtextual references? Which of your comments is? I’m sorry, but I must admit your commentary’s subtlety eludes me.
So, who doesn’t “get it?”
Anyway, insult slinging really bores me. Shall we make an attempt to be civil? Can you do that? I am going to give you a chance to show that you are saying something here other than inexpertly attacking people willy-nilly.
You state:
(“Of course, no matter how bright someone is, assuming instead of asking is going to constantly result in misunderstanding.”)
Well, I agree with that. What exactly did I misunderstand in your post to Wolf to inspire your unprovoked attack?
I really do hope you play ball, because your performance here has been less than admirable. So please, step up to the plate.
Posted by TheoPapathanasis on Apr 29, 2006 at 4:35 AM Theo,
I for one would be interested in your ideas and alternatives to Capitalism, and how they would be an Improvement, and the same with Beauty.Many years ago I was struck by Bill Buckley claiming that Capitalism and free enterprise were essentially synonomous, and bells went off and said he was wrong. I had pretty much reached the conclusions spelled out in the “halloween documents” ,. with Free Enterprise in the Commodity corner, and Capitalism in the Decommoditized corner, when they came out. However Wingers have trouble with these concepts.
As pointed out elsewhere I do not find government run capitalism (socialism) to be much of an improvement. I would find progressive libertarian to be a better political description than straight Anarchist, as the latter cannot hold itself without devolving into Warlordism.
On my own webpage I get into a lot more specifics about how a slight change in Libertarian logic makes a world of differences in the results.
I would appreciate your thoughts and comments.
Posted by FreeDem on Apr 29, 2006 at 6:59 AM Hi FreeDem and thanks for writing. I am all for open source tech, but have been too lazy to make the switch yet.
Personally, I do not adhere to any particular ideology these days and just make an effort to pull what’s useful from different traditions to better understand what sort of alternatives we have. I think it’s difficult (probably impossible) to definitively say what the future ought to be like. It’s indulging in some kind of mantic sociology or something. I imagine the real alternative, if it ever comes about (that is, if we don’t just destroy ourselves or the planet) won’t be pulled out of some ideology, but will be worked out in practical day-to-day activities and evolve into some kind of new society. That’s how capitalism came about and there’s some evidence that’s how feudal mode of production (to use a bit of that top secret Marxist code) developed too (Perry Anderson, ‘Passages from Antiquity to Feudalism’).
I do not know too much about progressive libertarianism. My problems with regular old libertarianism were always pretty straightforward. The negative/positive freedom argument leaves me leaning a bit more to preferring the positive notion. The other is that there is no talk of any redistribution in libertarianism. According to outright libertarianism, any redistribution would be an infringement on someone’s property. However, because I think the vast inequalities we see today, some extant infringements need rectification.
I know I do not like the idea of state capitalism myself and, personally, that is what I understood the USSR to have become (Trotskyites like Dunayevskaya and Cliff pointed this out first). This argument is usually ignored by most pro-capitalist critics of Stalin’s Soviet Union, but it makes a lot of sense. I would use a similar term to describe the U.S. military economy; it’s clearly state-controlled capitalism. I am not against real socialism. However, I notice that a lot of socialists seem to want me to argue their POV and that’s going a bit too far.
Anarchism entailing warlordism? I like a lot of anarchist social theory. I also like the idea that if you give people a chance, they will behave calmly without the threat of punishment or coercive measures (like starving). At the moment, I am in the middle of a good novel that critiques an imagined anarchist society (La Guin’s ‘The Dispossessed’) and agree with her that a society that denies people the ability to specialize would probably stultify some intellectual achievement. At the same time, I do not like the idea of any particular sect or group or team using superior knowledge to dominate others… So it’s tough to say.
As I say, I do not even know if the solutions will be known until we start trying something new.
Personally, I realize that nobody seems to want to revolt at this particular point in time, so I try to use the system against itself as much as I can to inspire some revolutionary thinking. I know it’s not exactly a solution; but as a single person, it’s the most I can accomplish.
At the risk of repeating myself too much here, I notice that whenever I am approached by a political group, they invariably want me to push their ideological agenda, and, as a writer, I believe that necessarily impinges upon my ability to produce stuff with real literary merit. (It would make me some kind of ideological shill or something.)
Posted by TheoPapathanasis on Apr 29, 2006 at 8:36 AM FreeDem,
From the brief description in your link, it seems to me that ‘progressive libertarianism’ might be a variation on democratic socialism, the kind of reform socialism advocated by James Weinstein, the founder of ‘In These Times’. I’ve sometimes heard it defined as ‘anarchism light’. Anarchists often have identified themselves under the rubric of ‘libertarian socialist’, which is much the same thing. Indeed, the beginning sentence,
Every single person wants control over their own life. However to accomplish most things in life, people have to work together. How they decide what and how is the definition of politics.
is a fair description of the anarchist idea of ‘Mutual Aid’.
In my mind, this is the principle that sets anarchist thought apart from the conventional wisdom. Primarily, the linear dynamics of either Hegelian idealist or Marxist materialist dialectic’s antagonism and alienation, and pragmatic realism as self-interest constrained by utilitarian concerns as the basis for understanding politics exclusively as oppositional struggle. An idea intuitively expressed by the women marching during the 1912 Lawrence textile strike with the banner ‘Give Us Bread And Roses’ and the paraphrase of Emma Goldman “If I can’t dance, I don’t want to be a part of your revolution”.
To demonstrate minimally the multi-dimensionality of political thought, a link to Political Compass. I test at -7,-7 (no surprise).
The hope that such a stateless model of governance may someday achieve universal practicality is buttressed in my opinion by the Piaget, Kohlberg, Gilligan Theory of Moral Development and its application in the post, post modernist Theory of Spiral Dynamics proposed by Graves, Beck, Wilbur, et al.
Irregardless, there is no reason I see for like minded individuals not to organise themselves along such lines, if in only a limited way, without a priori dismantling of the power of the State (except in one’s own consciousness).
Posted by luminous beauty on Apr 29, 2006 at 3:41 PM Theo,
I googled your name and read a couple of essays at “Dissident Voice”. It appears you have an interest in science fiction, a passion of mine since I learned to read. LeGuin’s “The Dispossesed” is a great read. Other SF books with anarchist leanings I’d recommend are “The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress” by Bob Heinlein which is also early speculation about AI, Kim Stanley Robinson’s detailed and realistic “Mars” trilogy and the classic “The Stars My Destination” by Alfred Bester, patterned on Dumas’ “The Count of Monte Cristo”.
And thanks for the new word in my vocabulary, ‘chrematistic’. I promise to abuse it, ruthlessly.
Posted by luminous beauty on Apr 29, 2006 at 5:43 PM Hello again luminous beauty and thanks for reading The Obliterator.
Ah yes. I agree. We should all use that word all the time! It’s a bit of a sly reference to Book One of Aristotle’s Politics, where I think we first find a distinction between “use value” and “exchange value” and his criticism of “chrematistics,” a term (pardon the pun) I think he coined.
Writing SF and, more generally, fictionalizing the future is my preferred way of addressing the kinds of thorny issues FreeDem, for example, is interested in. Rather than going around promulgating some kind of social program or whatever, I am more drawn to just telling stories about what could be… Hoping to get people to think while they are entertained. I have been developing a space opera about militarism and racism (and, yes, chrematistics) with an artist here in Greece. It’s kind of weird actually, as I pull a lot of economic concepts for my futuristic nightmare from antiquity.
And thanks for the political compass! It seems I’m all the way over there with the Dalai Lama, Nelson Mandela and the other anarcho-leftists.
Posted by TheoPapathanasis on Apr 30, 2006 at 6:54 AM Hello Beauty and Theo,
I think Beauty has the better handle on my point, but I guess I did not write so clearly as I had a link here (more localized this time) that went into a lot more detail. The political compass is more of a Libertarian method of convincing most that they are all Libertarians ( the majority would consider themselves 7,7 or near it. )
The key fallacy as I point out on my blog is that they define government very narrowly, while I define it broadly, and point out that everyone is subject (voluntarily and not) to many “governments”. Each of those “governments”, has its own level of controls, sometimes by other “governments”, sometimes by those involved, often it is very complicated (not a bad thing usually).
Beauty’s Anarchist concepts are certainly good ways to have many of those “governments”, but the American founders’ Ideas of having guards guarding the guards is IMHO still necessary to keep all the various “governments” accountable. That they have done only a marginally good job, till recently when the concept has nearly fallen apart, means to me that it was not deeply enough thought out, and to use Beauty’s Spiral a more thought out meme.
Rethought Libertarianism does address Theo’s objection about redistribution as the wealth itself becomes one of those “governments”. Ownership in that sense becomes dictatorial control over a “government” consisting of all who have a stake in an enterprise (say a coal mine) many people are involved and are affected, but have little or no way to hold the “owner” accountable for the decisions they make.
And Rand uses the example of a design build architect of a large building, but there are thousands of folk who are involved from draftsmen to carpenters, to others living in the city, to the presumptive tenants. Of all the arts, perhaps only theater is more collaborative, and each person has a steak in how it is done, as well as necessary design input. If they did not, the building would never make it beyond the architect’s mind. He is only whining because they don’t let him be dictator of everyone he affects.
That would not eliminate the idea of ownership, a small or even large “government” might be effectively led by a single person and not ever have “holding accountable” happen. It is only that, at need, it is able to happen that matters. Everyone decides where on the road they would like to drive their car (there is no physical barrier usually) it is only when they are irresponsible in such that “holding accountable” takes place.
Posted by FreeDem on May 1, 2006 at 11:31 AM Ultimate fighting is a legit sport (as much as football, or basketball are considered to be), and as for it’s criticts, I feel bad that you can only see it as negative activity. Personally I feel that training and fighting has GREATLY benifited my life, it instilled within me confidence, as well as show me my limitations. It is a beautiful and intricate sport, the purest there is. As for “the snowman”, at least he makes an attempt to influence people in hope of realizing a better world for all people, I comend him for his courage to express himself as well as his success. However I’m not saying that capatilism is a failed institution, although I feel that many of this countries leading companies are choosing price over principle. Slavery is not dead, it’s called minimum wage, and the poor in the U.S. no longer starve instead they are made obese and idle by fast food resteraunts (that way they’ll become to lazy to revolt).
I used to work a job where I made $5.17 an hour, and it was hard manual labor also it left me with only nights to study before class each morning, and barely afforded me with anytime to spend with my wife (whom CSM’s at walmart and has for four years and only gets paid a dollar more than people just starting out) much less eat a decent meal, and as for training it became non-exsistant, all I had to look forward to was low wages and humility at work. What was really ironic to me was that the managers were paid more in one hour than I would make in two thirty plus hour weeks for basiclly doing nothing but surveying other peoples labor, or sitting at the bar watching the NBA playoffs. Not only that they would hire teenage girls(the ones that applied in mini-skirts) to work over me and pay them 3X my wage, and I have a highschool degree and am two years away from a bachelors in business.
I now do a bit of landscaping, and am taking extra summer courses to become registered for physical training. Training for MMA is still a luxury. Monson is a real inspiration to me, he is a world class athalete who puts his family on a pedastal, and is passionate about what he believes in. Good Luck to you Snowman!
Posted by MarkGrissomTX on May 17, 2006 at 1:23 AM MarkGrissomTX
I hear you living in Tx now myself (after spending all my life in CA) I know the mentality you are dealing with.
Texan culture has one of the most ass-backwards, hateful attitudes when it comes to the working class and the poor, and the most idealistic fantasy type view of the wealthy.
If you’re working class and/or struggling in this State, the perception “culturally speaking” is that you are that way because you are too lazy to work hard enough to overcome your situation, or you did something illegal and are paying for it, or you just didn’t abide by the rules in some way, because we live in a country that rewards hard work and initiative, right!!!????
As you demonstrate not exactly and in Texas not at all.
When you add in the typical attitude so many have in regards to the rich, that they worked hard to get what they have, they earned it despite onerous, excessive taxes used to build projects for undeserving poor people, that they earned their wealth despite “socialist” regulations and laws designed to keep them from earning their reward. And so on and so on. So it’s no wonder this State is run by the wealthiest who of all the upper classes in this nation, have the least regard for the less fortunate.
The worthlessness of such a self-justifying belief system, and the real reason for its existence is made clear when you confront one the many Texans who believe this way. Eventually they’ll throw up their hands and say well not all can be rich. Someone has to do the manual labor, be on bottom, and someone has to be on top.
Texas is one of the places in this nation, where being working class is still stigmatized, and poor equated with being trash. It’s worse than any other place I’ve seen in this nation. Even the deep South with its conservative values is moderated by their form of Christianity which still practices helping others to be the best they can be.
So it’s no wonder that President Bush is the way he is. He is the epitome of the worst elements that make up Texas Culture. The harsh, religious conservatism of the South, combined with the strict Western/Cowboy, “everyone for himself” mentality.
They feed off each other, justifying the working class/struggling as deserving of their fate, because they refuse to take it upon themselves to improve their own lives.
As you show, this is absolutely not true. It is as many say, the barriers in the way of millions of working class and poor are not only structural, but cultural. All too often grossly unfair treatment in all ways, wages, hours worked Etc. are considered right and proper, and totally disregard how they end up making upward progress impossible for so many.
Posted by johnnyincentx on May 17, 2006 at 10:16 AM johnnycentrix
perceptive stuff, about GWB and his constituency, his sort of people, but they ain’t really real,--- small rich people,Talking about cowboys, I just saw Open Range with Kevin Costner, Robert Duvall, Annette Bening, a complement to Mr Smith Goes to Washington.
Those two movies epitomise another america, the other america, where people stand up to the scum.
Posted by frog on May 17, 2006 at 7:22 PM “The standard of living in this capitalistic country is such that even the poorest households in this country have a television, phone, cell phones, food, healthcare. “
You have got to be kidding me. Healthcare??? Retirement??? You must be thinking of Holland...or Canada....or any number of other countries. Would they tade thier cell phones for good healthcare and protection when the age???
Posted by John_Christian on May 25, 2006 at 1:22 PM John_Christian:
As I recall that bit of trash-logic came from a Hoover institute report written to debunk the notion that poverty exists in this country in any real sense.
The only thing it debunked was the notion that anyone who could say that with a straight face is in touch with reality.
I’ve known many poor and working class people with several cars. In fact sometimes they have a WHOLE YARD full of cars.
Not only that, but some poor/working class people also have a home with 5 or 6 or more rooms with each room having it’s own A/C. Uh huh. It’s true.
What the morons who believe this reflects a good standard of living purposely ignore (as you know) is NONE of the cars work. If one does work, they can’t use it, because they don’t have the money to register it and smog it. The A/C units also don’t work.
In truth this “vision of great material wealth” is a vision of huge piles of worthless trash.
Trash they are forced to keep, because they have no way to haul the trash away.
If they let the city do it, they will pay a fee, and they do NOT have the money for that either!!!!! LOL
Oh and as far as that spacious many bedroom house. Anyone who’s been in those neighborhoods knows that in such dwellings, one is lucky to find 2 rooms worth of decent, livable space.
Being short of cash meant normal upkeep and termite control was infrequent and insufficient, and the house is in piss poor shape and would be condemned by the city if inspected.
Luckily for them the city rarely wastes precious resources assessing such places. If they did, the city would suddenly be faced with housing many of those people who called those dwellings their ONLY homes, and once they lost it. They had no place to go.
Posted by johnnyincentx on May 25, 2006 at 3:30 PM Well lets just take my daughter for instance. She is 23 and has a small family. Yes she has a cheap cell phone. Her car is in bad repair and she has to hold the door shut with her arm when she drives it. She and her faimily have no real medical insurance and are in constant need of medical or dental attention. There is no ac and the heat is far from good. She work very hard. Her 4 year old cant get into head start because although she is way below the poverty level she makes “too much” to get him in and of course cant afford to put him in herself. She herself complains only little but accepts her fate.
So no my “trash logic” comes from reality unlike yours which seems to come from made up stories. If she were living in say Holland, she WOULD have insurance, her child WOULD be schooled, her houseing would be better and she could relax knowing that as she grows old she WILL be taken care of.
I get very angry when pro American Neo-Cons try to equate The USA and all her money with quality of life. Because on that scale were waaaaaay down the list.
Posted by John_Christian on May 26, 2006 at 9:07 AM John_Christian:
I’m on your side, but you “skimmed” my post, and misunderstood. Who I was talking about
If you re-read it for real, you will realize, I am slamming the same thing you are, hard, and being very sarcastic to whoever wrote the “trash-logic” you originally responded to. LOL
Otherwise you would have realized the “trash-logic” I mentioned had NOTHING to do with you.:-D
“Trash logic” in that it is an utterly filthy and corrupt way of thinking that relies on simplistic “logical sounding” analysis of “actual factual data.”
Here is an example of “trash-logic” (oh and it has nothing to do with the term “white trash” LOL:
1) Having many cars means someone is wealthy.
2.) My neighbor down the street is dirt poor.
3.) The same neighbor has 6 cars parked in his yard.
To the practitioner of “trash logic” my neighbor is wealthy, because having many cars means your wealthy, and my neighbor has 6 cars.As you can see it’s “trash-logic.” :-D You and I know what it really means though.
Posted by johnnyincentx on May 26, 2006 at 9:46 AM Somehow, against all odds, after ending on some sort of vague libertarian note, this thread was resuscitated…
johnnycentrix: I really think you owe me an apology. (Not that I actually expect one, because, these days, I find internet discourse is more and more an series of snarky exercises… and I have been involved in internet politics since the days when internet was just a bunch of bulletin boards.)
However, the offer stands, so feel free to email me to clear this up:
tpapathanasis@gmail.com
Anyway, let’s all get over the childishness and get to the heart of the matter here:
John_Christian went after winterchestnut for the latter’s obvious mythologizing. However, I would say there is some truth to winterchestnut’s statement. Compared to the massive immiseration that defines most of the planet, your average poor or working class American is relatively well-off. Relatively. Naturally, poor, working class people have serious problems, but they are not suffering the same living conditions as your average Bangladeshi (or whomever else one cares to name off the top of one’s head). I think, in a very real sense, there might be room here to start talking about what some, in Marxist circles, term a labour aristocracy
Posted by TheoPapathanasis on May 26, 2006 at 7:34 PM Well, it’s clear there’s really no point in trying to communicate with you, guy.
Posted by TheoPapathanasis on May 27, 2006 at 11:55 AM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Gabriel Thompson
- Superheroes: Invisibles No Ms
Mexican laborers, real superheroes. - The Ultimate Fighting Anarchist
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1972 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2006 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
