> I don't want to sound too cynical, or slur the
> dyslexic and others with
> diagnosable problems, but we're a nation of
> "learning disabled" and
> *maniac-depressives*(when we don't get what we
> want).
Speak for yourself. I "want" a decent job, health insurance, a roof over my head, and food. You cannot label me (or "we"), a wage-worker like the majority of people in this country, as "learning disabled" and "maniac [sic?] depressive." Although the standard of living that's sliding out from under us sure makes it feel that way sometimes!
> Was a pre-existing diagnosis ever presented into
> evidence?
> I believe the Army still uses the MMPI and other
> psych tests,
> so they would have known if she was a psych case.
Was a diagnosis made of the capitalists and their polical bureacrat quislings before they bombed the living hell out of Iraq and continue to carry out a 15-year long genocide of 2 million+ people?
> Amadeus:
>
> > Leigh,
> > I appreciate your comments, but it seems to me
> that the differences
> > you point out are abstract and subjective. We have
> no way of know way
> > of knowing whether Sheehan was in fact really
> "responsible" when
> > compared to England; nor do we have any way of
> knowing whether
> > Sheehan was also a "dungeon master." In fact, the
> only indicator in
> > making these decisions appears to be the relative
> privilege of
> > Sheehan vs. the poverty of England. In this light
> we can be well
> > assured that those with more privilege in
> capitalist society ALWAYS
> > can afford a higher moral ground, just as Gingrich
> and other
> > conservatives were fond to inadvertently point out
> in thei
r "personal
> > responsibility" speeches in the 90s. (It should be
> well noted that
> > Sheehan pointed out the prisoner abuse in her
> missive yesterday, in a
> > manner timely with England's sentencing.)
>
>
> I'm intentionally being subjective, but I don't
> think abstract.
> Morality itself is "abstract", but as a "christian",
> which I'm
> sure England believes herself to be, she should have
> been
> able to "throw herself to the lions" for her
> beliefs.
But she didn't. Why? Because she was posessed by Satan? Or because she was one of those crazy "maniac depressives" who decides to join the army because there's no decent friggin jobs? One of those pitied working class women who make 'bad life decisions?' In capitalist USA, the best "christians" are those who can afford to be so, who can afford to smooth over their image, buy some decent PR, and going on to donate occassionally to the red cross to alleviate their more insidious complicity.
> That means resisting hurtful behavior to others(bare
> minimum)
> according to her "godhead". Three years is gonna be
> a cakewalk
> compared to her "sentence from up high".
Right, and by this criteria everyone who joins the US armed forces, all those brown, black, and working class faces you see, should be damned to hell. Let's throw in those black New Orleans looters, too: the lord will not lapse in my-- oops, I mean His-- judgement. I GUARANTEE you that this type of violence-- only the fingertip of a very powerful fist-- will continue so long as class society does. Do not blame the player, blame the game-- you tell me who's the real "dungeon master." You will NOT absolve the capitalist class of their *collective* responsibility by singling out individual members of the working class and hanging them out to dry. I will not allow you to.
> As far as poor.... I believe she or her family own a
> home, which
> is an impoverishing experience for someone at
> working class, or
> working poor income, but it would be gratuitious to
> believe she
> is "poor".
If you read what I'd wrote (*see below) you'd see my point, Leigh, is not that she was poor, but that she, as a working class person, is being targeted, like Cindy Sheehan, and lynched from the highest tree, for the crimes the capitalist class. It doesn't matter if she owns a home, or drives a mercedes for that matter.
> I know literally hundreds of people that go through
> their day to day
> existance with little more than the clothes on their
> back, wondering
> where the next meal is coming from. That's poor.
Thanks for the lecture on the true meaning of poverty, mom, but I'm not the type to shed liberal crocodile tears. I will, however, finish what's on my plate, thank you.
* > > We can theorize and argue all day on what was
> really going through
> > the minds of England and Sheehan, and whose
> actions were morally
> > correct, and whose were not. At the end of the
> day, the material
> > realities stand: working class women and men,
> regardless of their
> > relative levels of privilege, regardless of
> whether they are from the
> > rural south or California, are taking the fall for
> capitalists'
> > policies. If England got three years, then her
> commanding officers
> > should have gotten three hundred, and THEIR
> commanders-- ultimately
> > the heads of state bureaucracy like Bush,
> Rumsfeld, et al., should
> > have gotten three thousand-- TOO BAD, right? But
> by that point we've
> > superseded the abstract notion of individual
> responsibility and duty,
> > haven't we?
> >
> > And there should be no more or less sympathy for
> England than the
> > millions of soldiers who have, through little real
> choice of their
> > own, fought and died violently for the
> accumulatory drools of the
> > capitalist class. Torture, rape, and pillage, and
> protest, strike and
> > repression have ALWAYS been among the spoils of
> war, and they will
> > continue as long as class society does.
> > --adx
__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com