so, should we ostracize babies for wearing those disposable diapers that are destructive to the environment?
wojtek thinks doug and others (including me) are missing the point. but i see a begging of the question in your (and wojtek's) argument: if you wish to hold someone responsible for an action, when/where do you stop? is it enough for you that you have a picture of the girl holding an iraqi on a leash? your analysis/investigation is done?
> I just feel, at a lot of levels, that "procrastination time" is over
> if US society, and by unfortunate extention, much of the world
> hopes to continue to towards any socially progressive goals, and
> making Lyndie England some sort of "poster child" for societal
> abuse doesn't cut it. By the standards you are using, we're all
> victims... and we are, sooooooo, what then?
i agree that she is no poster child. the point is that that does not make her the only or most responsible/culpable person in the affair.
certain things are "self-evident" or "common sense" to the right (and perhaps the majority of the people -> wojtek's appeal to "common sense" is justified in that sense). part of the method of the left as an agent of progressive change, i have always thought, is to carry out the deeper analysis that substantiates or negates the common sense belief (no different from the theoretical working of a science). especially when we are confronted with situations that involve a severe imbalance in power.
--ravi
-- If you wish to contact me, you will get my attention faster by substituting "r" for "listmail" in my email address. Thank you!