Guest guest Posted May 23, 2001 Report Share Posted May 23, 2001 You are quite correct. My view DOES require that a parallel be established between the 1930s, and the present period. (Not necessarily just in the U.S., tho). Let me note one parallel. Virtually all theories about the rise of fascisms - and there were many, with the German variety somewhat aberrant, actually - point to a long-term, festering economic decline. In Europe, recovery from WW I was never really complete. In the U.S. the 1920s were very uneven. Despite the Bull Market, agriculture was in depression most of this period, and the U.S. was much more agricultural then than now. Anyway, it was a long, long period of festering economic stagnation that led people to feeling something was 'sick' with society, and that this 'sickness' needed a 'spiritual' cure. Now, it is a simple fact (I will provide some data in another post) that there has been a vast eruption of interest in the 'spiritual' in the U.S., and elsewhere, since around 1970, or even a bit before. Is this tied to widespread, lingering economic maliaise? This is exactly the kind of empirical question that interests me. The World Bank gives us the answer. The Bank provides an annual estimate of GLOBAL economic activity and growth. In the 1950s, the world economy grew at the rate of 5.0% per year, after correcting for inflation. By the 1970s, growth dropped to 3.6% per year. In the 1980s, there was a further deceleration to 2.8% per year. In the first half of the 1990s, the rate was down to 2.0%. When we average out the world economic growth rate for from 1995 to 2005, all appearances are that it will fall below 2.0%. As Lester Thurow remarks, " In just two decades capitalism lost 60% of its momentum. " This is NOT just a cyclical event. It is a long-term Kondratiev decline. The shock of this decline in economic growth has been global. Everywhere, it is causing real anxiety, turmoil, depression, and stress. Remember, these growth rates have to be judged against continuing demographic increase, too. In the U.S., this situation has resulted in a loss of real earned income at about the rate of 1% a year (a bit faster in recessions, slower in expansions) over the past 30 years. Now, my argument is that the explosion of 'spirituality' addresses this REAL crisis, and the emotional and psychic feeling of 'dis-ease' which the crisis has produced. And, I argue, this IS similar to the worldwide situation in the interwar period. I am not arguing for an exact parallel, nor saying that the localized forms of 'fascism' that existed in dozens of countries in the 1930s will once again appear. Instead, I claim that managing a modern political economy by 'spiritual' means is a TYPE of political strategy. This broad type INCLUDES the classic fascisms. I see the U.S. turning toward more 'spiritual' techniques of social control. I think it is worth looking at the tie between spirituality and economics. And I think we can learn a lot by looking at what happened in the 1930s, both politically and economically. Do I think the U.S. today is an exact replica of Weimar Germany? Of course not. Do I think that both Europe in the 1930s, and the U.S. today, are marked by a simultaneous and linked economic decline and spiritual revolution? Yes, I do. And I think we need to investigate these issues. Keep an open mind. That would be good enough, as far as I am concerned. Most posters here seem NOT to have an open mind on these issues at all. Instead of data, I get a lot of Milton Friedman true-believer protestations. If there is any religious orientation more mystical than 'libertarianism' in corporate America, I certainly can't imagine what it would be. Re: Spirituality... > > > Hello, > > > > Your argument logically suggests that, had Rita been a German > living in > > Germany in the 1930s, she should have just tried to do her job. > After all, > > there have always been evil governments, so why oppose the Nazis. > That is > > what most Germans did. > > Your argument logically suggests that the current situation in the > United States is similar to pre-Nazi Germany. While I am sure that > there were many people who were in a great deal of " denial " about what > was happening there (their neighbors being shipped away en masse for > example)...I truly do not see that the current situation is similar. > Therefore, these types of arguments strike me as the vainest > *HYPERBOLE*! In fact, much, much, worse than the metaphor of " soul > rape " or " brainwashing " that you object to so strenuously. (I hope > most of you can see that this is a huge *understatment* and that I > actually feel much more strongly about it). > > Can you back up the comparison? Other people have given reasonable > explanations for their choice of words. You haven't. > > Also, a huge tactic that XA uses is to demean people's experiences > because there is always the greater suffering somewhere. > > This is the same thing you are doing. Your story is more dramatic, > more vital, more...more...more! Therefore, everyone else's efforts > are just paltry, small, etc. But what you don't seem to be getting, > in your near-perfect arrogance, is that not all people can be for all > causes, and your idea of importance may not be universally shared. > Things *are* relative. For someone recovering from an injury, walking > might be a great accomplishment. Most other people have the luxury to > take it for granted. > > You are taking a hell of a lot for granted. I'm so glad you have the > *freedom* to fight for your causes. > > Hicks > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 23, 2001 Report Share Posted May 23, 2001 - you have the freedom to fight for your causes, too. And I am sure you do. (I am positive you are a bulldog when it comes to defending a dollar.) We choose different causes. But we are, all of us, free to choose. Re: Spirituality... > > > Hello, > > > > Your argument logically suggests that, had Rita been a German > living in > > Germany in the 1930s, she should have just tried to do her job. > After all, > > there have always been evil governments, so why oppose the Nazis. > That is > > what most Germans did. > > Your argument logically suggests that the current situation in the > United States is similar to pre-Nazi Germany. While I am sure that > there were many people who were in a great deal of " denial " about what > was happening there (their neighbors being shipped away en masse for > example)...I truly do not see that the current situation is similar. > Therefore, these types of arguments strike me as the vainest > *HYPERBOLE*! In fact, much, much, worse than the metaphor of " soul > rape " or " brainwashing " that you object to so strenuously. (I hope > most of you can see that this is a huge *understatment* and that I > actually feel much more strongly about it). > > Can you back up the comparison? Other people have given reasonable > explanations for their choice of words. You haven't. > > Also, a huge tactic that XA uses is to demean people's experiences > because there is always the greater suffering somewhere. > > This is the same thing you are doing. Your story is more dramatic, > more vital, more...more...more! Therefore, everyone else's efforts > are just paltry, small, etc. But what you don't seem to be getting, > in your near-perfect arrogance, is that not all people can be for all > causes, and your idea of importance may not be universally shared. > Things *are* relative. For someone recovering from an injury, walking > might be a great accomplishment. Most other people have the luxury to > take it for granted. > > You are taking a hell of a lot for granted. I'm so glad you have the > *freedom* to fight for your causes. > > Hicks > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 23, 2001 Report Share Posted May 23, 2001 There you go again, making assumptions. I am not a suburbanite. I live ten minutes from downtown in 14th largest city in the country. Don't the assumptions you make offend your taste for academic purity? I have problems with your values, too. Why are Colombians more important than North Koreans? Chinese? Muslims? etc. You are old enough to remember the ravages of Pol Pot and yet were old enough to have fought at the time, but you never mention having taken up arms in Cambodia. And then there's that much maligned group, the Americans, who nurtured you, educated you, gave you a job and now give you a pension. In my opinion, your enchantment with Colombia has little to do with the drug war -- it is that old, macho myth -- the glorious fighter who risks his life with crafty natives and beautiful intelligent women in the rain forest. An Indiana who feels he must rationalize his adventurism into some kind of social and political context. I am not enamored of the vision of the genetic damage to generations of people from all over the world because they are ingesting Roundup along with their tofu. And do you know how many other products soy is found in? Roundup does not go away. It accumulates. And the USDA has agreed with Dow that the genetically engineered soy beans will be mixed in with the unaltered ones, so that food manufacturers will never know what's in their products and you will never know what you are eating. There won't be any recalls of soy products. Many strains of bacteria have become resistant to antibiotics, rendering them virtually untreatable. They used to think that radiation wasn't that harmful either (you're also old enough to remember seeing newsreels of all those bombs they blew up in Nevada). What will happen when all the pests that Roundup now discourages become impervious to it? We'll still be poisoned, and the pests will still be there. You ought to see into Dow's capitalist trick. > > > > > > Your argument logically suggests that, had Rita been a German > > living in > > > Germany in the 1930s, she should have just tried to do her job. > > After all, > > > there have always been evil governments, so why oppose the Nazis. > > That is > > > what most Germans did. > > > > No, that is not what I suggest, or say. I say she is not in Morazan, > > and she prefers to worry about the problems she does encounter in her > > own back yard, as you put it, rather than the ones that are another > > continent away. And she has good reasons for doing so, as you > > admitted in an earlier post. > > > > > > Ooops. YOU could have gotten away with that in Germany. Not > > Rita. I > > > wouldn't have done so well either. I am not Jewish, but they > > actually got > > > to the commies first, and I would probably have qualified. > > > > > Being a German scholar, I have given a lot of thought to whether I > > could have ignored the atrocities of Nazi Germany, though it's not > > clear to me how many people really knew about them given the > > efficiency of the Nazi media machine in a world with a less globally > > intensive information exchange. I can tell you that I have lost a > > couple of jobs because I have spoken up for principles I believed to > > be right. As for Germany, obviously I will never know the answer. I > > would like to believe that I could have been very brave, and done my > > best to prevent what I could prevent. On the other hand, I doubt that > > you would have faulted a German who said that he wasn't going to help > > out the Jews because his main priority was to assassinate Hitler, nor > > can you believe, I think, that under the circumstances an > > assassination would not have helped the Jews more directly than any > > kind of underground railroad or resistance fighting that could have > > been undertaken. > > > > > But, as you say, Rita CAN play the 'I've got mine, to hell with > > you' game > > > NOW, in this country. > > > > I did not say that. > > > > > > That is her choice. > > > > > > This is not a place for a long discussion of epistemology. But. > > . . . > > > > > > The difference between 'truth' and 'myth' has to do with how well > > a verbal > > > representation corresponds with material experience. And what role > > 'reason' > > > plays in the development of the model. > > > > > > No verbal representation ever is fully accurate, since words are > > not > > > things. And, as we learn and knowledge grows, verbal > > representations get > > > better and better. Truth changes. > > > > The problem here is that you cannot compare Rita's facts to her > > representation of them, because you were not there and do not know > > them. In fact, you are denying the reality of her experience without a > > basis to do so. > > > > > > Now, I don't deny that my thinking is not always as good as it > > should be. > > > > Glad to hear it. > > > > > We all make mistakes. But I also believe that a view of current > > social and > > > political structures which takes a global view of events is today > > more > > > accurate than the parochial focus you suggest. You don't, luckily, > > have to > > > rely on my poor efforts to see the big picture. There are many > > better minds > > > than mine working on these problems. > > > > > > Relating the parts to the whole gives us a truer picture than > > keeping our > > > nose stuck in our bankbooks. This larger perspective isn't just > > another > > > myth, it is a TRUER representation, since it is the best verbal > > picture of > > > the social world we have today. Hell, even those capitalists whose > > stock > > > you hold dear will tell you 'it's a global world now, baby.' > > > > Now you are building some sort of myth about my bankbook and stock > > holdings, about which you know nothing. You remind me of the friend > > who held a box containing a birthday present upside down and pounded > > on it, saying, " You're a lawyer, there's got to be more in here than > > this. " > > > > > > The myth is that you can continue to live in your own backyard, > > and be > > > unaffected. > > > > > > Of course, I think you know all this. You have just decided to > > let the > > > higher power handle the big decisions for you. You have decided > > that if you > > > agree to be powerless over the big decisions, then they will run the > > program > > > so that it works to your benefit. That is the 'miracle of faith' > > that > > > undergirds 12-step, and other, leaps of faith. Trusting the higher > > powers > > > to do you good. > > > > Here you are making a whopping and insulting assumption, which > > suggests that you have never read any of my posts or that if you have, > > you have forgotten what they said. > > > > > > I never said I was heroic, by the way. I said I have met heros. > > And > > > witnessed victims, too. I suggest when we discuss the drug war, > > truth > > > demands that we note all the fronts on which that war is being > > fought. You > > > prefer, it seems, to remain ignorant of those aspects of the drug > > war that > > > don't directly touch your life: > > > > I am well aware that the drug wars are being fought in my own back > > yard, and I am appalled by the erosion of civil liberties that has > > resulted. But somehow I do not think that picking up an assault rifle > > and going to Latin America will fix this. We still have courts, and > > until now, for the most part rational courts. This is the forum in > > which to fight the ways in which the war on drugs affects American > > citizens. I am not really sure that in the long run your efforts will > > even have as much effect as Rita's. > > > > If you really want to put human beings first, I would suggest, from my > > point of view, that you fight nuclear power, or Roundup resistant > > soybeans, which have the possibility of affecting human beings not > > just for fifty or a hundred, but for thousands of years. That is what > > I call a global view. I do not consider it taking a global view to > > fight in Latin America. I consider it an exercise like watching a > > Bruce Willis movie, in which more heat than light is generated. (Yes, > > it's not my line. No, I don't remember who said it.) > > > > You have already said in a different post that the most important > > priority to you is to fight against American exploitation of Latin > > Americans in the drug wars. So be it. But I cannot fathom why you > > assume that this should be everyone's priority, or why that alone > > would assure that the good guys will win. Wars are fought on many > > fronts, and no one who fights on only one front will win. Many people > > who contributed to the WWII effort were not on battlegrounds. Some > > were in laboratories, some were in decoding offices. Do you think we > > would have prevailed in WWII if the allies had not succeeded in > > convincing the Germans that an allied invasion would not occur in > > Normandy? The alternative would have been, perhaps, that now we would > > be ruled by the Russians, who wrought terrible atrocities on the > > people of Berlin when they invaded. Would that have been a good > > outcome, in your view? > > > > > > " It is not enough that you understand in what ignorance humans > > as well > > > as animals live; you must also acquire the WILL to ignorance. You > > need to > > > grasp that without this kind of ignorance life itself would be > > impossible, > > > that it is a condition under which alone the living thing can > > preserve > > > itself and PROSPER; a great, firm dome of ignorance must encompass > > you " > > > > > > F. Nietzsche, 1968, The Will To Power, Vintage, p. 609 > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 23, 2001 Report Share Posted May 23, 2001 > I am ending the discussion. I know your values, and they are not going > to change. No sense wasting time. You've obviously spent a lot of time walking 20 miles to school, up hill both ways. I'm surprised to see you give up so easily. > You suburbanites are a hoot and a crock, my dear. Thank God I've never made over $400 a week, have no 401K, no kids, and no equity in a home. You'd be hurling such insults at me, too. Anything but middle class, right? Poor is much more cool. I was married to a guy like you once. He is now as lonely as he is arrogant. Joan > > > > > > Your argument logically suggests that, had Rita been a German > > living in > > > Germany in the 1930s, she should have just tried to do her job. > > After all, > > > there have always been evil governments, so why oppose the Nazis. > > That is > > > what most Germans did. > > > > No, that is not what I suggest, or say. I say she is not in Morazan, > > and she prefers to worry about the problems she does encounter in her > > own back yard, as you put it, rather than the ones that are another > > continent away. And she has good reasons for doing so, as you > > admitted in an earlier post. > > > > > > Ooops. YOU could have gotten away with that in Germany. Not > > Rita. I > > > wouldn't have done so well either. I am not Jewish, but they > > actually got > > > to the commies first, and I would probably have qualified. > > > > > Being a German scholar, I have given a lot of thought to whether I > > could have ignored the atrocities of Nazi Germany, though it's not > > clear to me how many people really knew about them given the > > efficiency of the Nazi media machine in a world with a less globally > > intensive information exchange. I can tell you that I have lost a > > couple of jobs because I have spoken up for principles I believed to > > be right. As for Germany, obviously I will never know the answer. I > > would like to believe that I could have been very brave, and done my > > best to prevent what I could prevent. On the other hand, I doubt that > > you would have faulted a German who said that he wasn't going to help > > out the Jews because his main priority was to assassinate Hitler, nor > > can you believe, I think, that under the circumstances an > > assassination would not have helped the Jews more directly than any > > kind of underground railroad or resistance fighting that could have > > been undertaken. > > > > > But, as you say, Rita CAN play the 'I've got mine, to hell with > > you' game > > > NOW, in this country. > > > > I did not say that. > > > > > > That is her choice. > > > > > > This is not a place for a long discussion of epistemology. But. > > . . . > > > > > > The difference between 'truth' and 'myth' has to do with how well > > a verbal > > > representation corresponds with material experience. And what role > > 'reason' > > > plays in the development of the model. > > > > > > No verbal representation ever is fully accurate, since words are > > not > > > things. And, as we learn and knowledge grows, verbal > > representations get > > > better and better. Truth changes. > > > > The problem here is that you cannot compare Rita's facts to her > > representation of them, because you were not there and do not know > > them. In fact, you are denying the reality of her experience without a > > basis to do so. > > > > > > Now, I don't deny that my thinking is not always as good as it > > should be. > > > > Glad to hear it. > > > > > We all make mistakes. But I also believe that a view of current > > social and > > > political structures which takes a global view of events is today > > more > > > accurate than the parochial focus you suggest. You don't, luckily, > > have to > > > rely on my poor efforts to see the big picture. There are many > > better minds > > > than mine working on these problems. > > > > > > Relating the parts to the whole gives us a truer picture than > > keeping our > > > nose stuck in our bankbooks. This larger perspective isn't just > > another > > > myth, it is a TRUER representation, since it is the best verbal > > picture of > > > the social world we have today. Hell, even those capitalists whose > > stock > > > you hold dear will tell you 'it's a global world now, baby.' > > > > Now you are building some sort of myth about my bankbook and stock > > holdings, about which you know nothing. You remind me of the friend > > who held a box containing a birthday present upside down and pounded > > on it, saying, " You're a lawyer, there's got to be more in here than > > this. " > > > > > > The myth is that you can continue to live in your own backyard, > > and be > > > unaffected. > > > > > > Of course, I think you know all this. You have just decided to > > let the > > > higher power handle the big decisions for you. You have decided > > that if you > > > agree to be powerless over the big decisions, then they will run the > > program > > > so that it works to your benefit. That is the 'miracle of faith' > > that > > > undergirds 12-step, and other, leaps of faith. Trusting the higher > > powers > > > to do you good. > > > > Here you are making a whopping and insulting assumption, which > > suggests that you have never read any of my posts or that if you have, > > you have forgotten what they said. > > > > > > I never said I was heroic, by the way. I said I have met heros. > > And > > > witnessed victims, too. I suggest when we discuss the drug war, > > truth > > > demands that we note all the fronts on which that war is being > > fought. You > > > prefer, it seems, to remain ignorant of those aspects of the drug > > war that > > > don't directly touch your life: > > > > I am well aware that the drug wars are being fought in my own back > > yard, and I am appalled by the erosion of civil liberties that has > > resulted. But somehow I do not think that picking up an assault rifle > > and going to Latin America will fix this. We still have courts, and > > until now, for the most part rational courts. This is the forum in > > which to fight the ways in which the war on drugs affects American > > citizens. I am not really sure that in the long run your efforts will > > even have as much effect as Rita's. > > > > If you really want to put human beings first, I would suggest, from my > > point of view, that you fight nuclear power, or Roundup resistant > > soybeans, which have the possibility of affecting human beings not > > just for fifty or a hundred, but for thousands of years. That is what > > I call a global view. I do not consider it taking a global view to > > fight in Latin America. I consider it an exercise like watching a > > Bruce Willis movie, in which more heat than light is generated. (Yes, > > it's not my line. No, I don't remember who said it.) > > > > You have already said in a different post that the most important > > priority to you is to fight against American exploitation of Latin > > Americans in the drug wars. So be it. But I cannot fathom why you > > assume that this should be everyone's priority, or why that alone > > would assure that the good guys will win. Wars are fought on many > > fronts, and no one who fights on only one front will win. Many people > > who contributed to the WWII effort were not on battlegrounds. Some > > were in laboratories, some were in decoding offices. Do you think we > > would have prevailed in WWII if the allies had not succeeded in > > convincing the Germans that an allied invasion would not occur in > > Normandy? The alternative would have been, perhaps, that now we would > > be ruled by the Russians, who wrought terrible atrocities on the > > people of Berlin when they invaded. Would that have been a good > > outcome, in your view? > > > > > > " It is not enough that you understand in what ignorance humans > > as well > > > as animals live; you must also acquire the WILL to ignorance. You > > need to > > > grasp that without this kind of ignorance life itself would be > > impossible, > > > that it is a condition under which alone the living thing can > > preserve > > > itself and PROSPER; a great, firm dome of ignorance must encompass > > you " > > > > > > F. Nietzsche, 1968, The Will To Power, Vintage, p. 609 > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 23, 2001 Report Share Posted May 23, 2001 Joan - I think you were rapping on me for a post which I intended to kayleigh. The only reply I made to you said " I agree, " etc. Hope I ain't THAT much like your ex - or, at least, if I am, that he ain't that much like your description. Sounds pretty bad. (Better be careful to do my share of the housework; you have put the fear of god in me!) Re: Spirituality... > > I am ending the discussion. I know your values, and they are > not going > > to change. No sense wasting time. > > You've obviously spent a lot of time walking 20 miles to school, up > hill both ways. I'm surprised to see you give up so easily. > > > You suburbanites are a hoot and a crock, my dear. > > Thank God I've never made over $400 a week, have no 401K, no kids, > and no equity in a home. You'd be hurling such insults at me, too. > Anything but middle class, right? Poor is much more cool. > > I was married to a guy like you once. He is now as lonely as he is > arrogant. > > Joan > > > > > > > > > > > Your argument logically suggests that, had Rita been a German > > > living in > > > > Germany in the 1930s, she should have just tried to do her job. > > > After all, > > > > there have always been evil governments, so why oppose the > Nazis. > > > That is > > > > what most Germans did. > > > > > > No, that is not what I suggest, or say. I say she is not in > Morazan, > > > and she prefers to worry about the problems she does encounter in > her > > > own back yard, as you put it, rather than the ones that are > another > > > continent away. And she has good reasons for doing so, as you > > > admitted in an earlier post. > > > > > > > > Ooops. YOU could have gotten away with that in Germany. Not > > > Rita. I > > > > wouldn't have done so well either. I am not Jewish, but they > > > actually got > > > > to the commies first, and I would probably have qualified. > > > > > > > Being a German scholar, I have given a lot of thought to whether I > > > could have ignored the atrocities of Nazi Germany, though it's not > > > clear to me how many people really knew about them given the > > > efficiency of the Nazi media machine in a world with a less > globally > > > intensive information exchange. I can tell you that I have lost a > > > couple of jobs because I have spoken up for principles I believed > to > > > be right. As for Germany, obviously I will never know the > answer. I > > > would like to believe that I could have been very brave, and done > my > > > best to prevent what I could prevent. On the other hand, I doubt > that > > > you would have faulted a German who said that he wasn't going to > help > > > out the Jews because his main priority was to assassinate Hitler, > nor > > > can you believe, I think, that under the circumstances an > > > assassination would not have helped the Jews more directly than > any > > > kind of underground railroad or resistance fighting that could > have > > > been undertaken. > > > > > > > But, as you say, Rita CAN play the 'I've got mine, to hell > with > > > you' game > > > > NOW, in this country. > > > > > > I did not say that. > > > > > > > > That is her choice. > > > > > > > > This is not a place for a long discussion of epistemology. > But. > > > . . . > > > > > > > > The difference between 'truth' and 'myth' has to do with how > well > > > a verbal > > > > representation corresponds with material experience. And what > role > > > 'reason' > > > > plays in the development of the model. > > > > > > > > No verbal representation ever is fully accurate, since words > are > > > not > > > > things. And, as we learn and knowledge grows, verbal > > > representations get > > > > better and better. Truth changes. > > > > > > The problem here is that you cannot compare Rita's facts to her > > > representation of them, because you were not there and do not know > > > them. In fact, you are denying the reality of her experience > without a > > > basis to do so. > > > > > > > > Now, I don't deny that my thinking is not always as good as it > > > should be. > > > > > > Glad to hear it. > > > > > > > We all make mistakes. But I also believe that a view of current > > > social and > > > > political structures which takes a global view of events is > today > > > more > > > > accurate than the parochial focus you suggest. You don't, > luckily, > > > have to > > > > rely on my poor efforts to see the big picture. There are many > > > better minds > > > > than mine working on these problems. > > > > > > > > Relating the parts to the whole gives us a truer picture than > > > keeping our > > > > nose stuck in our bankbooks. This larger perspective isn't just > > > another > > > > myth, it is a TRUER representation, since it is the best verbal > > > picture of > > > > the social world we have today. Hell, even those capitalists > whose > > > stock > > > > you hold dear will tell you 'it's a global world now, baby.' > > > > > > Now you are building some sort of myth about my bankbook and stock > > > holdings, about which you know nothing. You remind me of the > friend > > > who held a box containing a birthday present upside down and > pounded > > > on it, saying, " You're a lawyer, there's got to be more in here > than > > > this. " > > > > > > > > The myth is that you can continue to live in your own > backyard, > > > and be > > > > unaffected. > > > > > > > > Of course, I think you know all this. You have just decided > to > > > let the > > > > higher power handle the big decisions for you. You have decided > > > that if you > > > > agree to be powerless over the big decisions, then they will > run the > > > program > > > > so that it works to your benefit. That is the 'miracle of > faith' > > > that > > > > undergirds 12-step, and other, leaps of faith. Trusting the > higher > > > powers > > > > to do you good. > > > > > > Here you are making a whopping and insulting assumption, which > > > suggests that you have never read any of my posts or that if you > have, > > > you have forgotten what they said. > > > > > > > > I never said I was heroic, by the way. I said I have met > heros. > > > And > > > > witnessed victims, too. I suggest when we discuss the drug war, > > > truth > > > > demands that we note all the fronts on which that war is being > > > fought. You > > > > prefer, it seems, to remain ignorant of those aspects of the > drug > > > war that > > > > don't directly touch your life: > > > > > > I am well aware that the drug wars are being fought in my own back > > > yard, and I am appalled by the erosion of civil liberties that has > > > resulted. But somehow I do not think that picking up an assault > rifle > > > and going to Latin America will fix this. We still have courts, > and > > > until now, for the most part rational courts. This is the forum > in > > > which to fight the ways in which the war on drugs affects American > > > citizens. I am not really sure that in the long run your efforts > will > > > even have as much effect as Rita's. > > > > > > If you really want to put human beings first, I would suggest, > from my > > > point of view, that you fight nuclear power, or Roundup resistant > > > soybeans, which have the possibility of affecting human beings not > > > just for fifty or a hundred, but for thousands of years. That is > what > > > I call a global view. I do not consider it taking a global view > to > > > fight in Latin America. I consider it an exercise like watching a > > > Bruce Willis movie, in which more heat than light is generated. > (Yes, > > > it's not my line. No, I don't remember who said it.) > > > > > > You have already said in a different post that the most important > > > priority to you is to fight against American exploitation of Latin > > > Americans in the drug wars. So be it. But I cannot fathom why > you > > > assume that this should be everyone's priority, or why that alone > > > would assure that the good guys will win. Wars are fought on many > > > fronts, and no one who fights on only one front will win. Many > people > > > who contributed to the WWII effort were not on battlegrounds. > Some > > > were in laboratories, some were in decoding offices. Do you > think we > > > would have prevailed in WWII if the allies had not succeeded in > > > convincing the Germans that an allied invasion would not occur in > > > Normandy? The alternative would have been, perhaps, that now we > would > > > be ruled by the Russians, who wrought terrible atrocities on the > > > people of Berlin when they invaded. Would that have been a good > > > outcome, in your view? > > > > > > > > " It is not enough that you understand in what ignorance > humans > > > as well > > > > as animals live; you must also acquire the WILL to ignorance. > You > > > need to > > > > grasp that without this kind of ignorance life itself would be > > > impossible, > > > > that it is a condition under which alone the living thing can > > > preserve > > > > itself and PROSPER; a great, firm dome of ignorance must > encompass > > > you " > > > > > > > > F. Nietzsche, 1968, The Will To Power, Vintage, p. 609 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 23, 2001 Report Share Posted May 23, 2001 >I think you were rapping on me for a post which I intended to >kayleigh. Perhaps you should send her a private e-mail. Joan > > > > > > > > > > Your argument logically suggests that, had Rita been a German > > > > living in > > > > > Germany in the 1930s, she should have just tried to do her job. > > > > After all, > > > > > there have always been evil governments, so why oppose the > > Nazis. > > > > That is > > > > > what most Germans did. > > > > > > > > No, that is not what I suggest, or say. I say she is not in > > Morazan, > > > > and she prefers to worry about the problems she does encounter in > > her > > > > own back yard, as you put it, rather than the ones that are > > another > > > > continent away. And she has good reasons for doing so, as you > > > > admitted in an earlier post. > > > > > > > > > > Ooops. YOU could have gotten away with that in Germany. Not > > > > Rita. I > > > > > wouldn't have done so well either. I am not Jewish, but they > > > > actually got > > > > > to the commies first, and I would probably have qualified. > > > > > > > > > Being a German scholar, I have given a lot of thought to whether I > > > > could have ignored the atrocities of Nazi Germany, though it's not > > > > clear to me how many people really knew about them given the > > > > efficiency of the Nazi media machine in a world with a less > > globally > > > > intensive information exchange. I can tell you that I have lost a > > > > couple of jobs because I have spoken up for principles I believed > > to > > > > be right. As for Germany, obviously I will never know the > > answer. I > > > > would like to believe that I could have been very brave, and done > > my > > > > best to prevent what I could prevent. On the other hand, I doubt > > that > > > > you would have faulted a German who said that he wasn't going to > > help > > > > out the Jews because his main priority was to assassinate Hitler, > > nor > > > > can you believe, I think, that under the circumstances an > > > > assassination would not have helped the Jews more directly than > > any > > > > kind of underground railroad or resistance fighting that could > > have > > > > been undertaken. > > > > > > > > > But, as you say, Rita CAN play the 'I've got mine, to hell > > with > > > > you' game > > > > > NOW, in this country. > > > > > > > > I did not say that. > > > > > > > > > > That is her choice. > > > > > > > > > > This is not a place for a long discussion of epistemology. > > But. > > > > . . . > > > > > > > > > > The difference between 'truth' and 'myth' has to do with how > > well > > > > a verbal > > > > > representation corresponds with material experience. And what > > role > > > > 'reason' > > > > > plays in the development of the model. > > > > > > > > > > No verbal representation ever is fully accurate, since words > > are > > > > not > > > > > things. And, as we learn and knowledge grows, verbal > > > > representations get > > > > > better and better. Truth changes. > > > > > > > > The problem here is that you cannot compare Rita's facts to her > > > > representation of them, because you were not there and do not know > > > > them. In fact, you are denying the reality of her experience > > without a > > > > basis to do so. > > > > > > > > > > Now, I don't deny that my thinking is not always as good as it > > > > should be. > > > > > > > > Glad to hear it. > > > > > > > > > We all make mistakes. But I also believe that a view of current > > > > social and > > > > > political structures which takes a global view of events is > > today > > > > more > > > > > accurate than the parochial focus you suggest. You don't, > > luckily, > > > > have to > > > > > rely on my poor efforts to see the big picture. There are many > > > > better minds > > > > > than mine working on these problems. > > > > > > > > > > Relating the parts to the whole gives us a truer picture than > > > > keeping our > > > > > nose stuck in our bankbooks. This larger perspective isn't just > > > > another > > > > > myth, it is a TRUER representation, since it is the best verbal > > > > picture of > > > > > the social world we have today. Hell, even those capitalists > > whose > > > > stock > > > > > you hold dear will tell you 'it's a global world now, baby.' > > > > > > > > Now you are building some sort of myth about my bankbook and stock > > > > holdings, about which you know nothing. You remind me of the > > friend > > > > who held a box containing a birthday present upside down and > > pounded > > > > on it, saying, " You're a lawyer, there's got to be more in here > > than > > > > this. " > > > > > > > > > > The myth is that you can continue to live in your own > > backyard, > > > > and be > > > > > unaffected. > > > > > > > > > > Of course, I think you know all this. You have just decided > > to > > > > let the > > > > > higher power handle the big decisions for you. You have decided > > > > that if you > > > > > agree to be powerless over the big decisions, then they will > > run the > > > > program > > > > > so that it works to your benefit. That is the 'miracle of > > faith' > > > > that > > > > > undergirds 12-step, and other, leaps of faith. Trusting the > > higher > > > > powers > > > > > to do you good. > > > > > > > > Here you are making a whopping and insulting assumption, which > > > > suggests that you have never read any of my posts or that if you > > have, > > > > you have forgotten what they said. > > > > > > > > > > I never said I was heroic, by the way. I said I have met > > heros. > > > > And > > > > > witnessed victims, too. I suggest when we discuss the drug war, > > > > truth > > > > > demands that we note all the fronts on which that war is being > > > > fought. You > > > > > prefer, it seems, to remain ignorant of those aspects of the > > drug > > > > war that > > > > > don't directly touch your life: > > > > > > > > I am well aware that the drug wars are being fought in my own back > > > > yard, and I am appalled by the erosion of civil liberties that has > > > > resulted. But somehow I do not think that picking up an assault > > rifle > > > > and going to Latin America will fix this. We still have courts, > > and > > > > until now, for the most part rational courts. This is the forum > > in > > > > which to fight the ways in which the war on drugs affects American > > > > citizens. I am not really sure that in the long run your efforts > > will > > > > even have as much effect as Rita's. > > > > > > > > If you really want to put human beings first, I would suggest, > > from my > > > > point of view, that you fight nuclear power, or Roundup resistant > > > > soybeans, which have the possibility of affecting human beings not > > > > just for fifty or a hundred, but for thousands of years. That is > > what > > > > I call a global view. I do not consider it taking a global view > > to > > > > fight in Latin America. I consider it an exercise like watching a > > > > Bruce Willis movie, in which more heat than light is generated. > > (Yes, > > > > it's not my line. No, I don't remember who said it.) > > > > > > > > You have already said in a different post that the most important > > > > priority to you is to fight against American exploitation of Latin > > > > Americans in the drug wars. So be it. But I cannot fathom why > > you > > > > assume that this should be everyone's priority, or why that alone > > > > would assure that the good guys will win. Wars are fought on many > > > > fronts, and no one who fights on only one front will win. Many > > people > > > > who contributed to the WWII effort were not on battlegrounds. > > Some > > > > were in laboratories, some were in decoding offices. Do you > > think we > > > > would have prevailed in WWII if the allies had not succeeded in > > > > convincing the Germans that an allied invasion would not occur in > > > > Normandy? The alternative would have been, perhaps, that now we > > would > > > > be ruled by the Russians, who wrought terrible atrocities on the > > > > people of Berlin when they invaded. Would that have been a good > > > > outcome, in your view? > > > > > > > > > > " It is not enough that you understand in what ignorance > > humans > > > > as well > > > > > as animals live; you must also acquire the WILL to ignorance. > > You > > > > need to > > > > > grasp that without this kind of ignorance life itself would be > > > > impossible, > > > > > that it is a condition under which alone the living thing can > > > > preserve > > > > > itself and PROSPER; a great, firm dome of ignorance must > > encompass > > > > you " > > > > > > > > > > F. Nietzsche, 1968, The Will To Power, Vintage, p. 609 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 23, 2001 Report Share Posted May 23, 2001 > > > > Hello, > > > > > > Your argument logically suggests that, had Rita been a German > > living in > > > Germany in the 1930s, she should have just tried to do her job. > > After all, > > > there have always been evil governments, so why oppose the Nazis. > > That is > > > what most Germans did. > > > > Your argument logically suggests that the current situation in the > > United States is similar to pre-Nazi Germany. While I am sure that > > there were many people who were in a great deal of " denial " about what > > was happening there (their neighbors being shipped away en masse for > > example)...I truly do not see that the current situation is similar. > > Therefore, these types of arguments strike me as the vainest > > *HYPERBOLE*! In fact, much, much, worse than the metaphor of " soul > > rape " or " brainwashing " that you object to so strenuously. (I hope > > most of you can see that this is a huge *understatment* and that I > > actually feel much more strongly about it). > > > > Can you back up the comparison? Other people have given reasonable > > explanations for their choice of words. You haven't. > > > > Also, a huge tactic that XA uses is to demean people's experiences > > because there is always the greater suffering somewhere. > > > > This is the same thing you are doing. Your story is more dramatic, > > more vital, more...more...more! Therefore, everyone else's efforts > > are just paltry, small, etc. But what you don't seem to be getting, > > in your near-perfect arrogance, is that not all people can be for all > > causes, and your idea of importance may not be universally shared. > > Things *are* relative. For someone recovering from an injury, walking > > might be a great accomplishment. Most other people have the luxury to > > take it for granted. > > > > You are taking a hell of a lot for granted. I'm so glad you have the > > *freedom* to fight for your causes. > > > > Hicks > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2001 Report Share Posted May 24, 2001 > > You are quite correct. My view DOES require that a parallel be > established between the 1930s, and the present period. (Not necessarily > just in the U.S., tho). This is just a very partial reply. I have little enough information about what the US is doing, and even less about other countries. The sociology I am currently studying is based on the " interest-group conflict " proposition. This basically says that issues are decided based on the power various interest groups hold (and my discussion is limited to the United States, though I see how it can apply elsewhere). For some issues there is wide support, such as incest. For other issues, there is little support and/or conflicting interests. Not all people hold the same values. Even the same act is judged differently depending on the circumstances, such as murder. Most people agree that it is wrong, but we still have capital punishment, legally sanctioned murder. People in the United States belong to many many different interest groups. To use myself as an example: mothers, parents, women, students, treatment alumni, etc. and etc. Even some of the groups that I can identify myself with conflict with one another. My question and, I suppose objection, about the Nazi parallel is that it seems to me that we have far more interest groups and far quicker information exchange than was the case then. I do understand that the study of those times could be a major focus for some people...I do not really have in-depth information about what was happening there. But, I do have losses that arise from there. Even more interest groups. My uncle was a pilot, was captured alive and was executed by the Nazis. It is documented and the Italian underground, who is now aboveground, has recently honored him. My children's grandfather was also a war casualty. He committed suicide after returning from the war, an infantryman in Patton's army. Many people are still affected by that war. So many people have tried to explain what happened there, how it happened. Do you remember the experiments they did about telling people to shock others? Some of them developed this giddy laugh, but the doctor would come in and tell them, " they're really OK, just do what you are doing, it needs to be done... " and *some* people would do it until the " subjects " were dead. And others walked out before passing go. " No, I'll not participate. " The best I can come up with is like a lottery, where a set of circumstances, combined with another set of circumstances, and yet another, somehow allowed a situation to happen. Even today, it is extremely difficult to believe. It is very very complex. Comparisons to that time, IMO shoud be used *VERY* seldomly and with the greatest accuracy and care. " Keep and open mind. " I have heard that before. Sometimes it can mean what it sounds like. Sometimes not. Sometimes it can mean, keep an open mind so I can come in... Goodnight for now, Hicks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2001 Report Share Posted May 24, 2001 And with this post, becomes the winner of a brand new ILLFILE! ----------->Plonk! Re: Spirituality... > > > > > > > > > > Your argument logically suggests that, had Rita been a German > > living in > > > Germany in the 1930s, she should have just tried to do her job. > > After all, > > > there have always been evil governments, so why oppose the Nazis. > > That is > > > what most Germans did. > > > > No, that is not what I suggest, or say. I say she is not in Morazan, > > and she prefers to worry about the problems she does encounter in her > > own back yard, as you put it, rather than the ones that are another > > continent away. And she has good reasons for doing so, as you > > admitted in an earlier post. > > > > > > Ooops. YOU could have gotten away with that in Germany. Not > > Rita. I > > > wouldn't have done so well either. I am not Jewish, but they > > actually got > > > to the commies first, and I would probably have qualified. > > > > > Being a German scholar, I have given a lot of thought to whether I > > could have ignored the atrocities of Nazi Germany, though it's not > > clear to me how many people really knew about them given the > > efficiency of the Nazi media machine in a world with a less globally > > intensive information exchange. I can tell you that I have lost a > > couple of jobs because I have spoken up for principles I believed to > > be right. As for Germany, obviously I will never know the answer. I > > would like to believe that I could have been very brave, and done my > > best to prevent what I could prevent. On the other hand, I doubt that > > you would have faulted a German who said that he wasn't going to help > > out the Jews because his main priority was to assassinate Hitler, nor > > can you believe, I think, that under the circumstances an > > assassination would not have helped the Jews more directly than any > > kind of underground railroad or resistance fighting that could have > > been undertaken. > > > > > But, as you say, Rita CAN play the 'I've got mine, to hell with > > you' game > > > NOW, in this country. > > > > I did not say that. > > > > > > That is her choice. > > > > > > This is not a place for a long discussion of epistemology. But. > > . . . > > > > > > The difference between 'truth' and 'myth' has to do with how well > > a verbal > > > representation corresponds with material experience. And what role > > 'reason' > > > plays in the development of the model. > > > > > > No verbal representation ever is fully accurate, since words are > > not > > > things. And, as we learn and knowledge grows, verbal > > representations get > > > better and better. Truth changes. > > > > The problem here is that you cannot compare Rita's facts to her > > representation of them, because you were not there and do not know > > them. In fact, you are denying the reality of her experience without a > > basis to do so. > > > > > > Now, I don't deny that my thinking is not always as good as it > > should be. > > > > Glad to hear it. > > > > > We all make mistakes. But I also believe that a view of current > > social and > > > political structures which takes a global view of events is today > > more > > > accurate than the parochial focus you suggest. You don't, luckily, > > have to > > > rely on my poor efforts to see the big picture. There are many > > better minds > > > than mine working on these problems. > > > > > > Relating the parts to the whole gives us a truer picture than > > keeping our > > > nose stuck in our bankbooks. This larger perspective isn't just > > another > > > myth, it is a TRUER representation, since it is the best verbal > > picture of > > > the social world we have today. Hell, even those capitalists whose > > stock > > > you hold dear will tell you 'it's a global world now, baby.' > > > > Now you are building some sort of myth about my bankbook and stock > > holdings, about which you know nothing. You remind me of the friend > > who held a box containing a birthday present upside down and pounded > > on it, saying, " You're a lawyer, there's got to be more in here than > > this. " > > > > > > The myth is that you can continue to live in your own backyard, > > and be > > > unaffected. > > > > > > Of course, I think you know all this. You have just decided to > > let the > > > higher power handle the big decisions for you. You have decided > > that if you > > > agree to be powerless over the big decisions, then they will run the > > program > > > so that it works to your benefit. That is the 'miracle of faith' > > that > > > undergirds 12-step, and other, leaps of faith. Trusting the higher > > powers > > > to do you good. > > > > Here you are making a whopping and insulting assumption, which > > suggests that you have never read any of my posts or that if you have, > > you have forgotten what they said. > > > > > > I never said I was heroic, by the way. I said I have met heros. > > And > > > witnessed victims, too. I suggest when we discuss the drug war, > > truth > > > demands that we note all the fronts on which that war is being > > fought. You > > > prefer, it seems, to remain ignorant of those aspects of the drug > > war that > > > don't directly touch your life: > > > > I am well aware that the drug wars are being fought in my own back > > yard, and I am appalled by the erosion of civil liberties that has > > resulted. But somehow I do not think that picking up an assault rifle > > and going to Latin America will fix this. We still have courts, and > > until now, for the most part rational courts. This is the forum in > > which to fight the ways in which the war on drugs affects American > > citizens. I am not really sure that in the long run your efforts will > > even have as much effect as Rita's. > > > > If you really want to put human beings first, I would suggest, from my > > point of view, that you fight nuclear power, or Roundup resistant > > soybeans, which have the possibility of affecting human beings not > > just for fifty or a hundred, but for thousands of years. That is what > > I call a global view. I do not consider it taking a global view to > > fight in Latin America. I consider it an exercise like watching a > > Bruce Willis movie, in which more heat than light is generated. (Yes, > > it's not my line. No, I don't remember who said it.) > > > > You have already said in a different post that the most important > > priority to you is to fight against American exploitation of Latin > > Americans in the drug wars. So be it. But I cannot fathom why you > > assume that this should be everyone's priority, or why that alone > > would assure that the good guys will win. Wars are fought on many > > fronts, and no one who fights on only one front will win. Many people > > who contributed to the WWII effort were not on battlegrounds. Some > > were in laboratories, some were in decoding offices. Do you think we > > would have prevailed in WWII if the allies had not succeeded in > > convincing the Germans that an allied invasion would not occur in > > Normandy? The alternative would have been, perhaps, that now we would > > be ruled by the Russians, who wrought terrible atrocities on the > > people of Berlin when they invaded. Would that have been a good > > outcome, in your view? > > > > > > " It is not enough that you understand in what ignorance humans > > as well > > > as animals live; you must also acquire the WILL to ignorance. You > > need to > > > grasp that without this kind of ignorance life itself would be > > impossible, > > > that it is a condition under which alone the living thing can > > preserve > > > itself and PROSPER; a great, firm dome of ignorance must encompass > > you " > > > > > > F. Nietzsche, 1968, The Will To Power, Vintage, p. 609 > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2001 Report Share Posted May 24, 2001 Hello Interesting stuff, but i must say that from seeing his posts on addict-l and other places, Room does not strike me as an academic stepper. In fact, he often comes up with material embarassing to steppers, such as support for moderation approaches (I know you consider AA's to be moderators too, but I'm using the term in its usual sense). Of course, that will hardly enamour him to RR folks. P. > > > > You are quite correct. My view DOES require that a parallel be > > established between the 1930s, and the present period. (Not > necessarily > > just in the U.S., tho). > > This is just a very partial reply. I have little enough information > about what the US is doing, and even less about other countries. > > The sociology I am currently studying is based on the " interest-group > conflict " proposition. This basically says that issues are decided > based on the power various interest groups hold (and my discussion is > limited to the United States, though I see how it can apply > elsewhere). For some issues there is wide support, such as incest. > For other issues, there is little support and/or conflicting > interests. Not all people hold the same values. Even the same act is > judged differently depending on the circumstances, such as murder. > Most people agree that it is wrong, but we still have capital > punishment, legally sanctioned murder. > > People in the United States belong to many many different interest > groups. To use myself as an example: mothers, parents, women, > students, treatment alumni, etc. and etc. Even some of the groups > that I can identify myself with conflict with one another. > > My question and, I suppose objection, about the Nazi parallel is that > it seems to me that we have far more interest groups and far quicker > information exchange than was the case then. I do understand that the > study of those times could be a major focus for some people...I do not > really have in-depth information about what was happening there. > > But, I do have losses that arise from there. Even more interest > groups. My uncle was a pilot, was captured alive and was executed by > the Nazis. It is documented and the Italian underground, who is now > aboveground, has recently honored him. My children's grandfather was > also a war casualty. He committed suicide after returning from the > war, an infantryman in Patton's army. Many people are still affected > by that war. > > So many people have tried to explain what happened there, how it > happened. Do you remember the experiments they did about telling > people to shock others? Some of them developed this giddy laugh, but > the doctor would come in and tell them, " they're really OK, just do > what you are doing, it needs to be done... " and *some* people would do > it until the " subjects " were dead. And others walked out before > passing go. " No, I'll not participate. " > > The best I can come up with is like a lottery, where a set of > circumstances, combined with another set of circumstances, and yet > another, somehow allowed a situation to happen. Even today, it is > extremely difficult to believe. It is very very complex. Comparisons > to that time, IMO shoud be used *VERY* seldomly and with the greatest > accuracy and care. > > " Keep and open mind. " I have heard that before. Sometimes it can > mean what it sounds like. Sometimes not. Sometimes it can mean, keep > an open mind so I can come in... > > Goodnight for now, > Hicks > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2001 Report Share Posted May 24, 2001 The experiments you are referring to are the famous Milgrim experiments. Remember, some of the subjects absolutely refused to participate in the act of giving painful shocks; they got up and walked out. Others went along, but seemed stressed. Still others were 'liberated' when authority sanctioned their right to inflict pain. There was diversity. The majority, though, DID go along. What this tells us is that in the U.S. MOST people seem willing to inflict pain on others, if told to do so by authority, at least under certain condition in a laboratory. Equally classic is the Zimbardo work at Stanford. They set up a 'student run' prison, and got those selected as 'jailers' to read and 'pretend' that they the 'inherently superior'. This was done in an enclosed building on the campus - not far from the anthro building, in fact. The experiment quickly got out of hand, and had to be cut short. The 'jailers' turned mean, nasty and abusive. The results are frightening. Interest group theory has its uses. But it is based upon the assumption of a pluralistic and diverse socio-economic order, and on the 'contract-theory' of the state. Does this actually apply? This is an empirical question. An extremely data-rich volume by a British sociologist, , Corporate Business and Capitalist Classes, 1997, Oxford Univ, presents a good discussion of how skewed economic power is in the world. Despite the continuing dominance of the U.S. economy, in fact, U.S. influence is rapidly decreasing. There are more than 200 independent nations. But most of these are much smaller, in terms of GDP, than the large multinationals. Nor are all the multinationals organized in the same way; real differences exist between U.S., say, and Japanese firms. And firm size is exploding, with investment diversifying. There is a huge literature on globalization, world system theory, corporate organization, mass media and communications, and so on. All I am arguing is that you have to not start out ASSUMING that the world is made up of many small actors, and that these determine what happens by their contract behavior. You have to look at what actually happens. Much of what happens is top down. The drug war is a good example. People in the 1950s and 1960s thought that the biggest internal problem facing the U.S. was inequality and poverty. The Great Society was a dishonest and flawed way of addressing the issue, of course, even though some positive effects can be noted (eg, a drastic decrease in poverty amongst elders). But today, most people see 'addiction' as a more important problem than inequality and poverty. This has resulted from a top-down propaganda campaign. Have you ever read Nixon's first inaugural address? You will find it on line. There he clearly announced that govt-corporate leaders were turning away from a 'material' strategy, to a 'spiritual' strategy of social control. Much that has followed has been top-down. " Spiritual Revolution " in the U.S. is top-down, though the bottom levels always can choose to go along with authority, or fight back. But these decisions are not made on an egalitarian basis. As the pigs said at Animal Farm: " All animals are equal - - but some animals are MORE equal than others. " --- Original Message ----- To: <12-step-free > Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 2:09 AM Subject: Re: Spirituality... > > > > > You are quite correct. My view DOES require that a parallel be > > established between the 1930s, and the present period. (Not > necessarily > > just in the U.S., tho). > > This is just a very partial reply. I have little enough information > about what the US is doing, and even less about other countries. > > The sociology I am currently studying is based on the " interest-group > conflict " proposition. This basically says that issues are decided > based on the power various interest groups hold (and my discussion is > limited to the United States, though I see how it can apply > elsewhere). For some issues there is wide support, such as incest. > For other issues, there is little support and/or conflicting > interests. Not all people hold the same values. Even the same act is > judged differently depending on the circumstances, such as murder. > Most people agree that it is wrong, but we still have capital > punishment, legally sanctioned murder. > > People in the United States belong to many many different interest > groups. To use myself as an example: mothers, parents, women, > students, treatment alumni, etc. and etc. Even some of the groups > that I can identify myself with conflict with one another. > > My question and, I suppose objection, about the Nazi parallel is that > it seems to me that we have far more interest groups and far quicker > information exchange than was the case then. I do understand that the > study of those times could be a major focus for some people...I do not > really have in-depth information about what was happening there. > > But, I do have losses that arise from there. Even more interest > groups. My uncle was a pilot, was captured alive and was executed by > the Nazis. It is documented and the Italian underground, who is now > aboveground, has recently honored him. My children's grandfather was > also a war casualty. He committed suicide after returning from the > war, an infantryman in Patton's army. Many people are still affected > by that war. > > So many people have tried to explain what happened there, how it > happened. Do you remember the experiments they did about telling > people to shock others? Some of them developed this giddy laugh, but > the doctor would come in and tell them, " they're really OK, just do > what you are doing, it needs to be done... " and *some* people would do > it until the " subjects " were dead. And others walked out before > passing go. " No, I'll not participate. " > > The best I can come up with is like a lottery, where a set of > circumstances, combined with another set of circumstances, and yet > another, somehow allowed a situation to happen. Even today, it is > extremely difficult to believe. It is very very complex. Comparisons > to that time, IMO shoud be used *VERY* seldomly and with the greatest > accuracy and care. > > " Keep and open mind. " I have heard that before. Sometimes it can > mean what it sounds like. Sometimes not. Sometimes it can mean, keep > an open mind so I can come in... > > Goodnight for now, > Hicks > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2001 Report Share Posted May 24, 2001 One of the rankest "authorities" today is stepper Bill W. (no, actually White) who wrote Slaying the Dragon an alleged history of Addiction Tx and Recovery in the US. Hmmm. I have not read that book, but I have read White's articles on diversity in recovery, and thought him quite reasonable. He is extremely supportive of alternatives to AA -- believes they are necessary and overdue -- and spills quite a bit of ink warning against being co-opted by the treatment industry, which he correctly points out is corrupting. Our online Lifering group invited him as a guest a few months back, and it would have been great except for the endless problems with Yahoo that prevent many, including White, from getting in the chatroom. (Which is why we are about to move to Digi-chat.) --Mona-- "The only sin is stupidity." - Wilde- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2001 Report Share Posted May 24, 2001 In this question many Europeans feel that you are holding the rest of the world as hostages to pursue your immoral exploitation of nature and people. Do you really think you can exist without friends? Well, there is one very simple thing you and European nations can do to stop that, if you believe it is happening: boycott U.S.manufactured goods, or goods manufactured by any multinational with a significant percentage of American shareholders. Set forth the alternative terms and conditions you believe are moral, and tell the U.S. our products will be embargoed until our policies conform. But if you continue purchasing U.S. goods, how can you be heard to complain? --Mona-- "The only sin is stupidity." - Wilde- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2001 Report Share Posted May 24, 2001 Hello, > The experiments you are referring to are the famous Milgrim experiments. > Remember, some of the subjects absolutely refused to participate in the act > of giving painful shocks; they got up and walked out. Others went along, > but seemed stressed. Still others were 'liberated' when authority > sanctioned their right to inflict pain. There was diversity. The majority, > though, DID go along. What this tells us is that in the U.S. MOST people > seem willing to inflict pain on others, if told to do so by authority, at > least under certain condition in a laboratory. > > Equally classic is the Zimbardo work at Stanford. They set up a 'student > run' prison, and got those selected as 'jailers' to read and 'pretend' that > they the 'inherently superior'. This was done in an enclosed building on > the campus - not far from the anthro building, in fact. The experiment > quickly got out of hand, and had to be cut short. The 'jailers' turned > mean, nasty and abusive. The results are frightening. I seem to remember being shown movies of both of these studies, side by side. I believe it was in high school, it may even have been grade school. They made a big impression on me, but I did not remember the details of the conclusions. > > Interest group theory has its uses. But it is based upon the assumption > of a pluralistic and diverse socio-economic order, and on the > 'contract-theory' of the state. What is " contract-theory " ? My text does not discuss it. The class has been using interest group theory as a framework for discussing deviance. More powerful interest groups tend to have more ability to define what is deviant vis-a-vis lawmaking and enforcement. Drug policies are a perfect example. Also, it has been proven that the higher the socio-economic-status (SES), the less likely that person will be punished for a crime. Corporations are nearly exempt from any type of punishment because the laws are not set up to deal with entities or collections in a meaningful way. They can be fined and face *financial* sanctions, but corporate officers can't usually be held personally responsible for the acts of the corporation. Individuals, however, often face the full effects of the laws, but even then, if I am higher SES, I am less likely to be punished. My punishment for marijuana possession could be much harsher than what I could face if I embezzled thousands of dollars. The drugs that have been deemed " illegal " are not more harmful or dangerous than the drugs that are deemed " legal. " However, IMO it is in the best interests of some very powerful interest groups to keep drugs illegal, including organized crime with its symbiotic relationship with the government. Does this actually apply? This is an > empirical question. > > An extremely data-rich volume by a British sociologist, , > Corporate Business and Capitalist Classes, 1997, Oxford Univ, presents a > good discussion of how skewed economic power is in the world. Despite the > continuing dominance of the U.S. economy, in fact, U.S. influence is rapidly > decreasing. There are more than 200 independent nations. But most of these > are much smaller, in terms of GDP, than the large multinationals. Nor are > all the multinationals organized in the same way; real differences exist > between U.S., say, and Japanese firms. And firm size is exploding, with > investment diversifying. > > There is a huge literature on globalization, world system theory, > corporate organization, mass media and communications, and so on. All I am > arguing is that you have to not start out ASSUMING that the world is made up > of many small actors, and that these determine what happens by their > contract behavior. You have to look at what actually happens. Could you please explain what you mean by " contract behavior " ? I appreciate the source material. I guess some of my assumptions starting out on this discussion are that my range of influence is quite limited. I do believe that I control my own behavior and make my own choices given the situational constraints I face. I also have some influence over my children, less than I would like at times. I am also being pursuaded by my class and by discussions that changes that address the structure of the systems, that change the circumstances, will have more benefit in the long run than the quick-fix type of solutions usually employed by the state and the laws that only try to fix the *person*. (BTW, this is why your comment about bourgeise-feminist annoyed me so as well as your harsh critisim regarding Rita. I saw her as being in a position to do more than I am in--and doing it). As to the specifics of what can and should be done, I don't know. Participating on this list is of some benefit, if only to myself, but perhaps in other ways as well. I am certainly well aware of how the teachings of AA could be used as a tool by more powerful groups. It is *perfect*! Powerless individuals are necessarily easier to control. > Much of what happens is top down. The drug war is a good example. People > in the 1950s and 1960s thought that the biggest internal problem facing the > U.S. was inequality and poverty. The Great Society was a dishonest and > flawed way of addressing the issue, of course, even though some positive > effects can be noted (eg, a drastic decrease in poverty amongst elders). > But today, most people see 'addiction' as a more important problem than > inequality and poverty. This has resulted from a top-down propaganda > campaign. Have you ever read Nixon's first inaugural address? You > will find it on line. There he clearly announced that govt-corporate > leaders were turning away from a 'material' strategy, to a 'spiritual' > strategy of social control. Much that has followed has been top-down. > " Spiritual Revolution " in the U.S. is top-down, though the bottom levels > always can choose to go along with authority, or fight back. But these > decisions are not made on an egalitarian basis. As the pigs said at Animal > Farm: " All animals are equal - - but some animals are MORE equal than > others. " I have not the slightest doubt about that. Yet, with all, I am still having a hard time seeing America convert to fascism. Could you explain why you believe pluralism is not a factor? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2001 Report Share Posted May 25, 2001 Well Mike. I must admit you're a trustable person, but alas only in the sense that your reactions are highly predictable. If you read my mail once more you might be able to discover that your response was the one I expected. Then you say that because of my obligation to be grateful to USA, I have no right to criticize. Because of the freedom given to me by USA, I'm not allowed to feel anything but gratitude. Is this your definition of 'freedom'? Then to the war. It was won by The Allied Forces. My father was fighting the Germans in Narvik. He got dismissed after the Norwegian Army's capitulation, and then he started to smuggle English weapons from the coast and into to mountains were they were buried them in case of an Allied invasion along the Norwegian cost. His group was discovered by the Germans, but my father skied into Sweden. Here he was internatet by our neighbors, the very German friendly Swedes. After a while he flew from Sweden to England over occupied territory, and the plane before him was shot down. In England he joined the Norwegian forces placed in Scotland. After the war he thought he as well could continue in the army, and I think his greatest time was when he was educating sergeants for the infantry in Northern Norway. In these times the military should be able to withhold a massive Soviet attack in 48 hours before help could be expected. The preparations included atomic warfare. I've had a safe childhood, but I grew up in this atmosphere as the air I breathed. Should I feel more gratitude to USA than to my father? Do you think you're kind of Higher Power which the rest of the world shall bow for in gratitude. And then asking the rest of the world to pay tributes to this comic masquerade. And then, at last. I did not criticize USA in my mail. I mentioned that I could possibly be recognized as criticizing, and this was amazingly enough for releasing your predictable reply. Aren't you a bit itchy? Re: Spirituality...> >> Hello,> >> > Your argument logically suggests that, had Rita been a German> living in> > Germany in the 1930s, she should have just tried to do her job.> After all,> > there have always been evil governments, so why oppose the Nazis.> That is> > what most Germans did.>> Your argument logically suggests that the current situation in the> United States is similar to pre-Nazi Germany. While I am sure that> there were many people who were in a great deal of "denial" about what> was happening there (their neighbors being shipped away en masse for> example)...I truly do not see that the current situation is similar.> Therefore, these types of arguments strike me as the vainest> *HYPERBOLE*! In fact, much, much, worse than the metaphor of "soul> rape" or "brainwashing" that you object to so strenuously. (I hope> most of you can see that this is a huge *understatment* and that I> actually feel much more strongly about it).>> Can you back up the comparison? Other people have given reasonable> explanations for their choice of words. You haven't.>> Also, a huge tactic that XA uses is to demean people's experiences> because there is always the greater suffering somewhere.>> This is the same thing you are doing. Your story is more dramatic,> more vital, more...more...more! Therefore, everyone else's efforts> are just paltry, small, etc. But what you don't seem to be getting,> in your near-perfect arrogance, is that not all people can be for all> causes, and your idea of importance may not be universally shared.> Things *are* relative. For someone recovering from an injury, walking> might be a great accomplishment. Most other people have the luxury to> take it for granted.>> You are taking a hell of a lot for granted. I'm so glad you have the> *freedom* to fight for your causes.>> Hicks>>>>> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2001 Report Share Posted May 25, 2001 Well, American soldiers like my father, had nothing to gain by risking their neck to save your country/continent. Mike. Re: Spirituality...> >> Hello,> >> > Your argument logically suggests that, had Rita been a German> living in> > Germany in the 1930s, she should have just tried to do her job.> After all,> > there have always been evil governments, so why oppose the Nazis.> That is> > what most Germans did.>> Your argument logically suggests that the current situation in the> United States is similar to pre-Nazi Germany. While I am sure that> there were many people who were in a great deal of "denial" about what> was happening there (their neighbors being shipped away en masse for> example)...I truly do not see that the current situation is similar.> Therefore, these types of arguments strike me as the vainest> *HYPERBOLE*! In fact, much, much, worse than the metaphor of "soul> rape" or "brainwashing" that you object to so strenuously. (I hope> most of you can see that this is a huge *understatment* and that I> actually feel much more strongly about it).>> Can you back up the comparison? Other people have given reasonable> explanations for their choice of words. You haven't.>> Also, a huge tactic that XA uses is to demean people's experiences> because there is always the greater suffering somewhere.>> This is the same thing you are doing. Your story is more dramatic,> more vital, more...more...more! Therefore, everyone else's efforts> are just paltry, small, etc. But what you don't seem to be getting,> in your near-perfect arrogance, is that not all people can be for all> causes, and your idea of importance may not be universally shared.> Things *are* relative. For someone recovering from an injury, walking> might be a great accomplishment. Most other people have the luxury to> take it for granted.>> You are taking a hell of a lot for granted. I'm so glad you have the> *freedom* to fight for your causes.>> Hicks>>>>> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2001 Report Share Posted May 25, 2001 Hi Mona. The sentiment I desribed has been growing since Bush became president. In Europe, Clinton was a hero. He could have got away with anything because of his . But not Bush. From a European point of view he's so strange and weird, and many fear he can start a catastrophy without noticing it. I just read a major article in a Danish paper (Politiken the 23th of Maj this year). It's about a man called Marvin Olasky, a former communist who now represents the religious right. He is teaching moral journalism (Which means that journalism shall be rooted in the Bible), and is considered the father of "Compassionate Conservatism". In his book: "Compassionate Conservatism. What it is, what it does, and how it can transform America". President Bush har written the foreword. The other measures you're talking about have already started in a small scale, but could hastily grow to enourmous proportions. If you want a cue, look up for Attac. (French for attack). Attac is spreading like step fire at the moment. Parallell with this happening industries in Europe have been forced to harsher enviromental demands, and this has sparked an innovation process which in the long run will give Europe an advance compared to industries with no enviromental obligation and cheap energy. And those industries are facing global boycots. If you imagine both these tendencies working at the same time, then things will change rapidly, and then USA might start W.W.III. just to halt the development. That's my fear, and it's not because I don't like USA. If I should make a list of ten persons of which I have the highest regard in the addiction field, there would be about 8 Americans on the list. Bjørn Re: Re: Spirituality... In this question many Europeans feel that you are holding the rest of the world as hostages to pursue your immoral exploitation of nature and people. Do you really think you can exist without friends? Well, there is one very simple thing you and European nations can do to stop that, if you believe it is happening: boycott U.S.manufactured goods, or goods manufactured by any multinational with a significant percentage of American shareholders. Set forth the alternative terms and conditions you believe are moral, and tell the U.S. our products will be embargoed until our policies conform. But if you continue purchasing U.S. goods, how can you be heard to complain? --Mona-- "The only sin is stupidity." - Wilde- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2001 Report Share Posted May 25, 2001 Bjorn - A good place to start might be Thurow's The Future of Capitalism. The statistics are useful. (The remedy suggested is not). 'War' is not on the horizon, at least for awhile. But terrible, global problems DO exist. These require very severe actions, both of a propaganda/indoctrination type, and a police/military type. Things are going to change very rapidly. By the way, have you read Wuthnow's Sharing the Journey: Support Groups and America's New Quest for Community, 1994, Free Press? It is based on polling data. The interpretation is weak in places, but pretty good in others. AA and 12-Stepping is a minor part of the small-group aspect of the spiritual revolution. A national representative sample showed 75 million Americans as currently in a support group of some type. Most responded that the group had a 'spiritual' focus. AA has only something over 1 million in the U.S. Even if you add in all other 12-step groups, you probably top out around 3 million or so. The 12-steps matter because of the treatment industry and because govt is pushing them. But it is a small part of what is going on. The Wuthnow book only catches small groups. Pentecostal/Charismatic churches are left out - but this is an important part of the spiritual revolution. The book only looks at the US, too. But what is going on is international, though the US is a center of particular influence. The Wuthnow book should be on your reading list. Re: Spirituality...> >> Hello,> >> > Your argument logically suggests that, had Rita been a German> living in> > Germany in the 1930s, she should have just tried to do her job.> After all,> > there have always been evil governments, so why oppose the Nazis.> That is> > what most Germans did.>> Your argument logically suggests that the current situation in the> United States is similar to pre-Nazi Germany. While I am sure that> there were many people who were in a great deal of "denial" about what> was happening there (their neighbors being shipped away en masse for> example)...I truly do not see that the current situation is similar.> Therefore, these types of arguments strike me as the vainest> *HYPERBOLE*! In fact, much, much, worse than the metaphor of "soul> rape" or "brainwashing" that you object to so strenuously. (I hope> most of you can see that this is a huge *understatment* and that I> actually feel much more strongly about it).>> Can you back up the comparison? Other people have given reasonable> explanations for their choice of words. You haven't.>> Also, a huge tactic that XA uses is to demean people's experiences> because there is always the greater suffering somewhere.>> This is the same thing you are doing. Your story is more dramatic,> more vital, more...more...more! Therefore, everyone else's efforts> are just paltry, small, etc. But what you don't seem to be getting,> in your near-perfect arrogance, is that not all people can be for all> causes, and your idea of importance may not be universally shared.> Things *are* relative. For someone recovering from an injury, walking> might be a great accomplishment. Most other people have the luxury to> take it for granted.>> You are taking a hell of a lot for granted. I'm so glad you have the> *freedom* to fight for your causes.>> Hicks>>>>> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2001 Report Share Posted May 25, 2001 Slaying the Dragon is pro-treatment, and accepts many of the industry's myths. But it is not an hysterical presentation of this position. The work has a somewhat thoughtful tone, and is filled with useful info and has a good bibliography. I would recommend that anyone interested in the topic read it, but with a critical mind. Notice, by the way, the metaphor 'dragon' for 'addiction.' It is a religious metaphor, of course. Re: Re: Spirituality... One of the rankest "authorities" today is stepper Bill W. (no, actually White) who wrote Slaying the Dragon an alleged history of Addiction Tx and Recovery in the US. Hmmm. I have not read that book, but I have read White's articles on diversity in recovery, and thought him quite reasonable. He is extremely supportive of alternatives to AA -- believes they are necessary and overdue -- and spills quite a bit of ink warning against being co-opted by the treatment industry, which he correctly points out is corrupting. Our online Lifering group invited him as a guest a few months back, and it would have been great except for the endless problems with Yahoo that prevent many, including White, from getting in the chatroom. (Which is why we are about to move to Digi-chat.) --Mona-- "The only sin is stupidity." - Wilde- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2001 Report Share Posted May 25, 2001 Hello Bjørn, > > Should I feel more gratitude to USA than to my father? > Do you think you're kind of Higher Power which the rest of the world shall bow for in gratitude. And then asking the rest of the world to pay tributes to this comic masquerade. <snip> <from a prior thread> > You don't know a shit about Europe, and the Soviet Union would never had been able to suppress the European continent even if they had liberated it all without your help. > > You're living in a mythical sphere of self admiration and a holy right to do what you want. > > I think you're pushing you're luck beyond reason. I wasn't sure exactly which comments these comments were in relation to. The original thread you were posting on contained some references to losses that my family faced during WWII, but no value judgement about America's overall " contribution " or any type of " you should feel grateful " sentiment. You are right, I don't know that much about it. I hope the following isn't too off-topic. My father received a booklet in the mail today about the ceremony they performed in Italy for my uncle. It is illustrated and printed in Italian and English. I haven't seen it yet, but my father is finding it difficult material. Lee was a the Captain of a plane that was shot down. He suffered some burns and injuries, but was taken in by the Italian Partisans and was successfully hidden for about one month. Then he and one of the underground members were sighted by Germans, they may have been crossing a river. The other man escaped, but Lee couldn't run due to his injuries. They tortured him in an attempt to get the names of the members of the underground. He refused and was shot. The Italians whose lives he saved consider him a hero. The impression I got was that only now have the people there felt safe enough to release this story. A historian from that small town where it happened began contacting my other uncle about a year ago to find out background information about him. He was 23 when this happened and was listed as MIA for many months. Then the story was given my grandparents that he was shot as a " bandit. " They never heard the true story of what happened. My other uncle wanted very much to travel to Italy for the ceremony, but he is nearly 80 and didn't feel up to it. ========= My point in bringing this up originally, was not to somehow say that Americans won the war or that Europe should be grateful, or some other black and white stance. I doubt that would be 's position either. However, has made several comparisons between current Americans and Nazis. Usually when a person attempts to do this they are just a crackpot. This does not seem to be the case with , but I did want to remind him that for some people, losses due to that war are still a current issue. It is certainly a highly loaded emotionally charged topic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2001 Report Share Posted May 25, 2001 - Contract theory is the main idea of classical liberalism. It remains the dominant idea in America's small business sector, which makes up a substantial minority of the American population. Read the summary on Locke in any good encycopedia; it will give you a start. You will find a selection of readings in Social Contract Theory, ed by Lessnoff, 1990, NYU press. This is often assigned for political sci or sociology classes. Re: Spirituality... > > > Hello, > > > The experiments you are referring to are the famous Milgrim > experiments. > > Remember, some of the subjects absolutely refused to participate in > the act > > of giving painful shocks; they got up and walked out. Others went > along, > > but seemed stressed. Still others were 'liberated' when authority > > sanctioned their right to inflict pain. There was diversity. The > majority, > > though, DID go along. What this tells us is that in the U.S. MOST > people > > seem willing to inflict pain on others, if told to do so by > authority, at > > least under certain condition in a laboratory. > > > > Equally classic is the Zimbardo work at Stanford. They set up a > 'student > > run' prison, and got those selected as 'jailers' to read and > 'pretend' that > > they the 'inherently superior'. This was done in an enclosed > building on > > the campus - not far from the anthro building, in fact. The > experiment > > quickly got out of hand, and had to be cut short. The 'jailers' > turned > > mean, nasty and abusive. The results are frightening. > > I seem to remember being shown movies of both of these studies, side > by side. I believe it was in high school, it may even have been grade > school. They made a big impression on me, but I did not remember the > details of the conclusions. > > > > Interest group theory has its uses. But it is based upon the > assumption > > of a pluralistic and diverse socio-economic order, and on the > > 'contract-theory' of the state. > > What is " contract-theory " ? My text does not discuss it. The class > has been using interest group theory as a framework for discussing > deviance. More powerful interest groups tend to have more ability to > define what is deviant vis-a-vis lawmaking and enforcement. Drug > policies are a perfect example. Also, it has been proven that the > higher the socio-economic-status (SES), the less likely that person > will be punished for a crime. Corporations are nearly exempt from any > type of punishment because the laws are not set up to deal with > entities or collections in a meaningful way. They can be fined and > face *financial* sanctions, but corporate officers can't usually be > held personally responsible for the acts of the corporation. > > Individuals, however, often face the full effects of the laws, but > even then, if I am higher SES, I am less likely to be punished. My > punishment for marijuana possession could be much harsher than what I > could face if I embezzled thousands of dollars. > > The drugs that have been deemed " illegal " are not more harmful or > dangerous than the drugs that are deemed " legal. " However, IMO it is > in the best interests of some very powerful interest groups to keep > drugs illegal, including organized crime with its symbiotic > relationship with the government. > > Does this actually apply? This is > an > > empirical question. > > > > An extremely data-rich volume by a British sociologist, > , > > Corporate Business and Capitalist Classes, 1997, Oxford Univ, > presents a > > good discussion of how skewed economic power is in the world. > Despite the > > continuing dominance of the U.S. economy, in fact, U.S. influence is > rapidly > > decreasing. There are more than 200 independent nations. But most > of these > > are much smaller, in terms of GDP, than the large multinationals. > Nor are > > all the multinationals organized in the same way; real differences > exist > > between U.S., say, and Japanese firms. And firm size is exploding, > with > > investment diversifying. > > > > There is a huge literature on globalization, world system theory, > > corporate organization, mass media and communications, and so on. > All I am > > arguing is that you have to not start out ASSUMING that the world is > made up > > of many small actors, and that these determine what happens by their > > contract behavior. You have to look at what actually happens. > > Could you please explain what you mean by " contract behavior " ? I > appreciate the source material. > > I guess some of my assumptions starting out on this discussion are > that my range of influence is quite limited. I do believe that I > control my own behavior and make my own choices given the situational > constraints I face. I also have some influence over my children, less > than I would like at times. > > I am also being pursuaded by my class and by discussions that changes > that address the structure of the systems, that change the > circumstances, will have more benefit in the long run than the > quick-fix type of solutions usually employed by the state and the laws > that only try to fix the *person*. (BTW, this is why your comment > about bourgeise-feminist annoyed me so as well as your harsh critisim > regarding Rita. I saw her as being in a position to do more than I am > in--and doing it). > > As to the specifics of what can and should be done, I don't know. > Participating on this list is of some benefit, if only to myself, but > perhaps in other ways as well. I am certainly well aware of how the > teachings of AA could be used as a tool by more powerful groups. It > is *perfect*! Powerless individuals are necessarily easier to > control. > > > Much of what happens is top down. The drug war is a good example. > People > > in the 1950s and 1960s thought that the biggest internal problem > facing the > > U.S. was inequality and poverty. The Great Society was a dishonest > and > > flawed way of addressing the issue, of course, even though some > positive > > effects can be noted (eg, a drastic decrease in poverty amongst > elders). > > But today, most people see 'addiction' as a more important problem > than > > inequality and poverty. This has resulted from a top-down > propaganda > > campaign. Have you ever read Nixon's first inaugural > address? You > > will find it on line. There he clearly announced that > govt-corporate > > leaders were turning away from a 'material' strategy, to a > 'spiritual' > > strategy of social control. Much that has followed has been > top-down. > > " Spiritual Revolution " in the U.S. is top-down, though the bottom > levels > > always can choose to go along with authority, or fight back. But > these > > decisions are not made on an egalitarian basis. As the pigs said at > Animal > > Farm: " All animals are equal - - but some animals are MORE equal > than > > others. " > > I have not the slightest doubt about that. Yet, with all, I am still > having a hard time seeing America convert to fascism. Could you > explain why you believe pluralism is not a factor? > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2001 Report Share Posted May 25, 2001 I believe many Americans share your fear. I believe that since yesterday's development (Sen. Jeffords declaring himself an independent) your fears should be somewhat allayed. > Hi Mona. > > The sentiment I desribed has been growing since Bush became president. > > In Europe, Clinton was a hero. He could have got away with anything because of his . But not Bush. From a European point of view he's so strange and weird, and many fear he can start a catastrophy without noticing it. > > I just read a major article in a Danish paper (Politiken the 23th of Maj this year). > > It's about a man called Marvin Olasky, a former communist who now represents the religious right. > He is teaching moral journalism (Which means that journalism shall be rooted in the Bible), and is considered the father of " Compassionate Conservatism " . > > In his book: " Compassionate Conservatism. What it is, what it does, and how it can transform America " . President Bush har written the foreword. > > The other measures you're talking about have already started in a small scale, but could hastily grow to enourmous proportions. If you want a cue, look up for Attac. > (French for attack). Attac is spreading like step fire at the moment. > > Parallell with this happening industries in Europe have been forced to harsher enviromental demands, and this has sparked an innovation process which in the long run will give Europe an advance compared to industries with no enviromental obligation and cheap energy. And those industries are facing global boycots. > > If you imagine both these tendencies working at the same time, then things will change rapidly, and then USA might start W.W.III. just to halt the development. > > That's my fear, and it's not because I don't like USA. If I should make a list of ten persons of which I have the highest regard in the addiction field, there would be about 8 Americans on the list. > > Bjørn > Re: Re: Spirituality... > > > In a message dated 5/24/01 3:55:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > herring@p... writes: > > > > In this question many Europeans feel that you are holding the rest of the > world as hostages to pursue your immoral exploitation of nature and people. > Do you really think you can exist without friends? > > > > Well, there is one very simple thing you and European nations can do to stop > that, if you believe it is happening: boycott U.S.manufactured goods, or > goods manufactured by any multinational with a significant percentage of > American shareholders. Set forth the alternative terms and conditions you > believe are moral, and tell the U.S. our products will be embargoed until our > policies conform. > > But if you continue purchasing U.S. goods, how can you be heard to complain? > > --Mona-- > > " The only sin is stupidity. " - Wilde- > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2001 Report Share Posted May 25, 2001 In Europe, Clinton was a hero. He could have got away with anything because of his . But not Bush. From a European point of view he's so strange and weird, and many fear he can start a catastrophy without noticing it. Clinton was an opportunist and is almost pathologically incapable of telling the truth. Gore, his heir apparent, is not much better, and takes his convictions by licking and then holding his finger in the wind. Bush is a moron who, I agree, could unwittingly cause a lot of big trouble, foreign and domestic. Those two choices are why I did not vote in the last election, and probably won't vote in the next. Not unless someone with views consistent with libertarian principles is running on a viable ticket. --Mona-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2001 Report Share Posted May 25, 2001 Who cares what Europeans think of our president? Since when did their opinion have anything to do with our country? Mike. Re: Re: Spirituality... In Europe, Clinton was a hero. He could have got away with anything because of his . But not Bush. From a European point of view he's so strange and weird, and many fear he can start a catastrophy without noticing it. Clinton was an opportunist and is almost pathologically incapable of telling the truth. Gore, his heir apparent, is not much better, and takes his convictions by licking and then holding his finger in the wind. Bush is a moron who, I agree, could unwittingly cause a lot of big trouble, foreign and domestic. Those two choices are why I did not vote in the last election, and probably won't vote in the next. Not unless someone with views consistent with libertarian principles is running on a viable ticket. --Mona-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 26, 2001 Report Share Posted May 26, 2001 Hi Mona. I don't disagree on Clinton as I was not expressing my own views, which I don't think are representative by any means. What I was trying to describe is a change in feeling and attitude towards US. Clinton visited Copenhagen a couple of years ago, and everybody was talking about his personality and charisma. After the official program had ended he went to a Copenhagen jazz club and played the sax. There were no demonstrations that I know of, and it almost felt as we all should be grateful. Of course the security was high, but not very visible. If we imagine Bush should visit Copenhagen the difference, I believe, will be striking. The press will be more critical, and there's a high risk for massive and violent actions and demonstrations. The official tone is about like this: "Well, the man is the president of USA and it will probably not last forever, so we better get along." But most people simply doesn't like him, and will readily believe anything that makes him look worse. Of course this combined with his NMD, refusal of the Kyoto-protocol, laissez-faire politics on the Middle East and clumsy handling of the Chinese doesn't make him look as a man that could be trusted. The fact that US has been voted out of UN organs as the International Narcotics Control Board and the organ for protecting Human Rights are signs of these changes in attitude. In TV the change of the balance of power in the Senate was welcomed as a positive and encouraging event. Then, this Olasky guy just fit in with the other topics. All these signs mark IMO a major shift in attitude at the same time as a very powerful anti-globalizations movement (initiated by the French) Attac is growing very fast. And guess who is the bad guy in the Attac scheme. All I'm saying is that the transition from Clinton to Bush is accompanied by a major shift in climate, and this could become important within few years. In my personal machiavellian mind I think it could be some positive consequences, though. It will be easier to criticize the XA movement and spiritualism. Therefore, even though I think the situation is not reassuring, the shift could result in some positive changes. I would like to stress that I'm not anti-American as such, the label means nothing to me. I'm not anti as such any nation or people. In the last months I've been thinking of taking an initiative to an international conference in Copenhagen consisting mostly of Americans. In the last fourteen days I've got some friends in Copenhagen interested,and the project is actually launched even though I'm not at all sure if it will succeed. I'm thinking of combining the questions resulting from the War On Drugs and the addiction-treatment industry. As I see it the 'tough on drug' policy is pumping people into the addiction industry, which then tries to control the peoples minds and actions. I can agree with Mona that there is a qualitative difference between war and the concept of addiction, but there is a connection, and I don't think it's coincidental. But then of course, both phenomena could exist without each other. The war in Colombia is a good example. Without the drug legislation in US the war would be political impossible. It's as simple as that. At the same the war justifies further legislation in US, and could result in a massive growth in the treatment industry on behalf of the prison industry, or maybe they could merge. I don't know, but the subject keeps popping up in my mind. Bjørn Re: Re: Spirituality... In Europe, Clinton was a hero. He could have got away with anything because of his . But not Bush. From a European point of view he's so strange and weird, and many fear he can start a catastrophy without noticing it. Clinton was an opportunist and is almost pathologically incapable of telling the truth. Gore, his heir apparent, is not much better, and takes his convictions by licking and then holding his finger in the wind. Bush is a moron who, I agree, could unwittingly cause a lot of big trouble, foreign and domestic. Those two choices are why I did not vote in the last election, and probably won't vote in the next. Not unless someone with views consistent with libertarian principles is running on a viable ticket. --Mona-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.