[Peace-discuss] Would It Kill Us to Apologize to Iran for the
Coup?
E. Wayne Johnson
ewj at pigs.ag
Sun Feb 8 08:59:20 CST 2009
Wow, pretty good. You've thought about this for awhile Jenifer.
Certainly self-control is far more valuable and desirable than the
oppressive bondage of
the totalitarian "nanny state".
Do you prefer the flexible molded magnets shaped like a pair of stone
tablets
or the ones that have the magnet glued on the back?
/"You were called for liberty (eleutheria), but take care that don't
just use this liberty as a resource and excuse for the fulfilling the
selfishness of the biological nature of the flesh, but in love you
should serve one another. The whole letter of law, both the commandments
and the derived corollaries, as regarding human relationships, is
readily complied with in one statement, "you shall love your neighbour
as yourself"./
- after Paul, Galatians 5.13-14.
Jenifer Cartwright wrote:
> Wow, I was just stating the obvious, duh -- I didn't think I'd said
> anything that anybody could possibly disagree with!
>
> So.... what would YOUR ideal society look like, Wayne? No rules, regs,
> laws, or gov'ts... and survival of the fittest? The Ten Commandments
> printed on refrigerator magnets, with implementation left to the honor
> system and God's revenge??
> --Jenifer
>
> --- On *Sat, 2/7/09, E. Wayne Johnson /<ewj at pigs.ag>/* wrote:
>
> From: E. Wayne Johnson <ewj at pigs.ag>
> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Would It Kill Us to Apologize to Iran
> for the Coup?
> To: jencart13 at yahoo.com
> Cc: "John W." <jbw292002 at gmail.com>, "peace discuss"
> <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
> Date: Saturday, February 7, 2009, 2:01 PM
>
> "Go and learn what this means..." "The Law killeth, but the
> Spirit giveth life".
>
> I suppose that one of the great benefits of this country being a
> federation of united States is that the people in each individual
> state can
> determine just what degree of intrusion of the authoritarian
> police power they are willing to tolerate, and people can then freely
> associate themselves to authoritarian or free societies depending
> upon their values and ability to tolerate inexact fit.
>
>
>
> Jenifer Cartwright wrote:
>> Re John's point about human nature: even if we argue that most
>> people are kind, generous, and good, there are always those few
>> who are not... and regardless of the economic systems in which
>> they're operating, some of these ruthless types will make their
>> way to the top by stepping on the backs of others UNLESS there
>> are laws in place -- and enforced -- that prevent it.
>> Some people (those who don't want their immorality interferred
>> with) love to say that "you can't legislate morality." Well, my
>> view is that it's the responsibility of gov't to use both sticks
>> and carrots. The gov't first must rule that certain immoral
>> behaviors are illegal, and then must enforce that ruling by
>> imposing penalties -- the civil rights act of 1964 comes to mind.
>> The gov't also sweetens the pot by allowing philanthropists to
>> deduct certain charitable contributions on their taxes... which
>> is the main reason that so many rich folks give so much money to
>> worthy causes. And in this way, the gov't sets the tone, and
>> people (not all of them, but more than otherwise) do eventually
>> become more ethical (e g comparison of the treatment and rights
>> of African-Americans immediately before- and now, long after the
>> civil rights act of '64).
>> --Jenifer
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --- On *Fri, 2/6/09, John W. /<jbw292002 at gmail.com>/* wrote:
>>
>> From: John W. <jbw292002 at gmail.com>
>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Would It Kill Us to Apologize to
>> Iran for the Coup?
>> To: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu>
>> Cc: "peace discuss" <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>> Date: Friday, February 6, 2009, 7:15 PM
>>
>>
>> Here is a point on which Carl and I agree, though his
>> interest in the topic is more academic, let us say, than
>> mine. Capitalism was the root cause of racial discrimination
>> rather than the reverse, and it's the source of just about
>> all of our other disparities as well.
>>
>> However, I go a step further and identify unregenerate human
>> nature as the real culprit. Humans, by and large, are
>> self-centered, grasping, fearful little creatures who are
>> more interested in getting ahead of their neighbor than in
>> sharing their bounty with him/her. It doesn't matter what
>> "system" we operate under, be it monarchy or capitalism or
>> communism or what have you. Some humans always seem to
>> figure out a way to oppress their fellow humans, and
>> rationalize their behavior in myriad ways. They don't even
>> consider it oppression, they consider it "working hard" or
>> "living right" or whatever - even when they don't work and
>> live on the income from a trust fund! And in that Marti is
>> absolutely right; by failing to recognize their privilege and
>> surrender at least some of it for the common good, they
>> perpetuate and exacerbate the evil.
>>
>> I continue to wonder at the factors which caused Europeans,
>> just in the last half of the last century, to get it more
>> nearly right than most other societies in history.
>>
>> JW
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 11:44 AM, C. G. Estabrook
>> <galliher at uiuc.edu <mailto:galliher at uiuc.edu>> wrote:
>>
>> I wouldn't call it limousine liberalism, but John is
>> correct I think to suggest that there is a tendency in
>> recent American liberalism to substitute diversity for
>> (economic) equality as the goal of progressive politics.
>>
>> The argument is sharply set out by Walter Benn Michaels
>> in "The Trouble with Diversity: How We Learned to Love
>> Identity and Ignore Inequality" (2006). And it's been
>> argued that the real story of Tom Frank's "What's the
>> Matter With Kansas?" (2004) is that the working class
>> abandoned the Democratic party when the Democrats
>> abandoned economic equality (insofar as they ever
>> embraced it) in favor of diversity.
>>
>> Benn Michaels summarized his argument in a recent issue
>> of the British journal, "New Left Review." Here is his
>> conclusion:
>>
>> "...the answer to the question, 'Why do American liberals
>> carry on about racism and sexism when they should be
>> carrying on about capitalism?', is pretty obvious: they
>> carry on about racism and sexism in order to avoid doing
>> so about capitalism. Either because they genuinely do
>> think that inequality is fine as long as it is not a
>> function of discrimination (in which case, they are
>> neoliberals of the right). Or because they think that
>> fighting against racial and sexual inequality is at least
>> a step in the direction of real equality (in which case,
>> they are neoliberals of the left). Given these options,
>> perhaps the neoliberals of the right are in a stronger
>> position -- the economic history of the last thirty years
>> suggests that diversified elites do even better than
>> undiversified ones. But of course, these are not the only
>> possible choices."
>>
>> <http://www.newleftreview.org/?page=article&view=2731
>> <http://www.newleftreview.org/?page=article&view=2731>>
>>
>>
>> John W. wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 8:58 AM, Robert Naiman
>> <naiman.uiuc at gmail.com <mailto:naiman.uiuc at gmail.com>
>> <mailto:naiman.uiuc at gmail.com
>> <mailto:naiman.uiuc at gmail.com>>> wrote:
>>
>> I'm definitely not in favor of refusal to recognize
>> privilege. But I presume
>> that in a non-racist society, if everyone woke up one
>> day and discovered that
>> by some mysterious process, a chunk of their
>> neighbors were
>> disproportionately excluded from the economic
>> benefits that the society had
>> to offer, people would move to address the disparity.
>>
>>
>> You gotta be shitting me, Robert. Surely you jest?
>> You have neighbors right
>> here on this mailing list who are disproportionately
>> excluded from the
>> economic benefits that society has to offer, and it
>> has nothing to do with
>> race, and no one on this list is doing a damned thing
>> about it or is GOING to
>> do a damned thing about it. Whenever I talk about
>> poverty, lack of health
>> insurance, etc., from a personal perspective, I get a
>> blank stare from the
>> limousine liberals. "Get a life," they say, or "Be
>> warmed and filled," to
>> quote the Good Book. I daresay that most of the
>> readers of this list care
>> more about people in Pakistan than they do about
>> their neighbors, at least in
>> terms of doing anything pragmatic to help them.
>>
>> I'll probably live to regret that comment, but there
>> it is.
>>
>>
>>
>> So, the fact that such disparities persist in our
>> society, and the fact that
>> we don't move successfully to redress them, to me is
>> evidence enough of
>> racism; no other story is necessary.
>>
>>
>> You ain't read enough stories, apparently. There are
>> many types of disparities in our society, and many
>> complex causes of such disparities.
>> Racism is an important one, but it is only one.
>>
>>
>>
>> That doesn't mean that other stories don't have
>> value, and might not also be important to achieving
>> the end of redress, but I see no need to posit them as
>> prerequisites, and some reason not to; since it might
>> be the case, for
>> example, that some people have a psychological
>> barrier against recognizing
>> privilege, but not against redress justified on some
>> other basis.
>>
>>
>> You lost me there. Not that it matters.
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20090208/fe85664d/attachment.htm
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list