>Parochialism means narrowness of thought. Stick with what I said. I
>said, again, "Parochialism invites co-optation", I didn't say "partial
>parochialism", I didn't say "causes". It is easy to focus on single
>issues, on the problem of the moment if you don't think broadly
>enough. If you do this, you will often miss the trail of blood
>leading up to the corporate helping hand, and this goes for idiots who
>bray against the "paralysis of analysis" as well as the less
>insulting and perhaps better-intentioned.
>>>And, despite opinions to the
>>>contrary on this list, the Constitution and myriad state and local
>>>laws are also extremely effective barriers to generating a greater
>>>breadth of political thought and action.
>>
>>dunno. free speech was pretty helpful. as was the right to association.
>>lessee there's the 14th.... but once again you folks miss the points,
>>which were two, for me.
>Free speech was not guaranteed by the Constitution. Free speech was
>squelched viciously from the get go and was only won by working people
>after a long struggle.
>We seem to forget that the words on the paper (merely a "parchment
>barrier" according to Madison) are appropriated ex-post facto to
>locate the sources of our freedom misleadingly in the Constitution and
>not within grimy struggles of the "great beast". We are told we can
>speak freely on the corner due to the Constitution. Rubbish! We can
>speak freely because of the hundreds and thousands of people who lost
>or risked their lives in an anonymous struggle against tyranny which
>bolstered its brutality with appeals to the Constitution, not to
>mention the flag and other symbols of hate.
>>1. appeal to the constitution is pretty powerful stuff, symbolically. you
>>can use it to your advantage. ...
>I abhor appeals to patriotism and other forms of fake solidarity. Our
>rights were not given to us by anyone, land-dweller or deity.
>Locating our rights in the Constitution is to abdicate the most
>valuable claim we have: we are humans with intrinsic rights to
>associate with whom we please, speak freely, etc.
>>yeah yeah doug i hear ya: "oh but it's republican. oh but it was designed
>>by those wig wearing pigs." again, though, what the hell isn't
>>contaminated??? absolutely nothing. see y'all are looking for some
>>archimedean point upon which you can stand and proclaim foundational truths
>>yourselves. we might as well figure it out now: there isn't any such place.
>"Contaminated" ... really. A document prepared in secret by the
>richest of the rich and their scribblers, ratified by only a tiny
>fraction of the population, and it's merely "contaminated".
>I'm comfortable saying we have a variety of rights because of our
>intrinsic nature. I'm not interested in squabbling with you over
>this, just as I'm not interested in squabbling with Jessie Helms over
>my rights he'd like to take from me --- this is not a negotiable
>topic.
>>parochialism may well be inescapable and it may not be a bad thing. there
>>is something wrong with the opposite, too --doncha think? people learn to
>>be moral people in situated contexts. they then learn to be more universal
>>as they acquire abstract thought. ...
>People are well-equipped by 8th grade for the abstract thought needed
>to understand most things of importance in public life. There's no
>excuse for adults to eschew it and to pass on to others this mode of
>thought.
>>simple, not easy. damn good thing too, i think. the question is, William,
>>how do you propose to get people to commit to themselves to something
>>abstract, distant, big? ...
>When I read Noam Chomsky, I feel he brings in the broad picture quite
>effectively. Ditto with Doug, Michael Perelman, and many others. I
>think it's a matter of getting these sorts of things in front of
>people's faces early enough in their lives so they can shield
>themselves from the vast torrent of deceit.
>Again, I think symbolism is poison to critical thought. We've got
>enough symbols intruding upon our minds. Let's leave them out.
>I find Thomas Ferguson's theories on democratic action careful, lucid,
>properly narrow in scope, and extremely illuminating. Several other
>folks have done some good work in domains near his that I find
>useful as well.
>Bill