Messages in this group:
* Re: [lbo-talk] Alternet reviews Singer's latest (The Way We Eat)
* Re: [lbo-talk] Alternet reviews Singer's latest (The Way We Eat)
* Re: [lbo-talk] Re: language of contempt
* Re: [lbo-talk] Re: language of contempt
* Re: [lbo-talk] Alex Cockburn going the Hitchens way?
* Re: [lbo-talk] Alex Cockburn going the Hitchens way?
* Re: [lbo-talk] Alex Cockburn going the Hitchens way?
* Re: [lbo-talk] Alex Cockburn going the Hitchens way?
* Re: [lbo-talk] Alex Cockburn going the Hitchens way?
=========== Message 1 =========== Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Alternet reviews Singer's latest
At around 25/5/06 7:20 am, Mike Ballard wrote:
>
> Sounds like my diet. Add more chilies and subtract a few things like tofu hot
> dogs and that's about it. Reduce costs, simplify and retire early. Healthier
> all around...
>
That's good to hear! I like the hot dogs just so I can eat (or pretend to) American style food: hot dogs with all that stuff on top of it ;-).
=========== Message 2 =========== Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Alternet reviews Singer's latest
At around 25/5/06 2:34 am, / dave / wrote:
> ravi wrote:
>> At around 24/5/06 8:31 pm, / dave / wrote:
>>> And leave it to me to gloss over the fact that people actually like
>>> good-tasting food now and then.
>>
>> Your point being that vegetarian or vegan food doesn't taste good?
>
> No, the point being that most any food tastes better than vitamin pills.
> (Sorry for the confusion...)
>
Ah, thanks for the clarification.
=========== Message 3 =========== Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Re: language of contempt
At around 7/6/06 11:24 am, joanna wrote:
>
> Women are not stupid, but they can be stupid about men. In fact, the
> whole phenomenon of women throwing themselves away on hopless, cluless
> bums is so common that it makes jokes like the above, funny.
>
> So, no. It's not enforced monogamy that prevents them from lining up for
> the fighter pilots. It's misplaced compassion.
>
Aren't you letting women off easy here? Isn't it probably that women like the jock type for the same reason that men like the bimbo type... they both fit what we (humans, somewhat relative to cultures) have defined as good looking?
=========== Message 4 =========== Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Re: language of contempt
At around 8/6/06 6:58 pm, Gar Lipow wrote:
>
> Or to put it more concisely: Living organisms are disposable containers
> for DNA.
>
> Don't remember who I stole this from. Dawkins?
>
A hen is an egg's way of making another egg?
=========== Message 5 =========== Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Alex Cockburn going the Hitchens way?
At around 19/6/06 1:11 pm, Jerry Monaco wrote:
>
> You may be correct that Cockburn can occasionally be off-handed in his
> condemnations, but often with good cause. But understand he is
> basically a polemicist.
>
Well, if he wants to get polemical about the Internet, he is going to get a spirited response from me. ;-)
> I think that one should make a distinction between exposing the
> hypocrisy of the current regime and defending the law that protects
> the ruling class as a whole. In my view Cockburn is basically
> correct. Not enough leftists took the opportunity to expose the
> "Intelligence Identities Protection Act", which is the underlying law
> that led to Scooter Libby's cover-up. The more intelligence agents
> exposed, especially CIA agents, the better for the world.
I have tackled the last part in my response to Carl (I do not agree either tactically, or even morally, with the notion that each CIA agent is an evil psychopath who deserves exposure and its results, etc. At least not much more than me, for funding, through my taxes, the Israeli terrorism of Palestine, among other things).
What is "not enough leftists"? Leftists, fortunately, form a spectrum. Some have to deal with the real world and politics of today, and keep their message clear, simple and relevant. Such groups might concede (tactically) the mind game to the right, on the "Intelligence Identities Protection" stuff, while noting their dissent for the record. Other leftists (and I have read at least a few) fill the hole by critically examining the basis/foundations themselves, and at various levels, and from different viewpoints.
> I wrote the following in November 2005, after the first confirmed
> reports of CIA prisons.
>
> _"The Rule of Law" and Secrecy: CIA Prisons and the Plame Affair_
> http://monacojerry.livejournal.com/32298.html
Live Journal? That is the Internet right? It's a blog!! OhmyGod its a blog! Inane Led Zeppelin floating loony stuff!!! ;-)
Added to my aggregator (props: Alesti Rules!).
And, oh yeah, thanks for showing that there are leftists (i.e., you!), who wrote about the basic wrongness of the law, even back in 2005!
=========== Message 6 =========== Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Alex Cockburn going the Hitchens way?
At around 19/6/06 2:17 pm, Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> Ace is right.
>
Wait, wait... that's what we are arguing about! That has to be at the end of the paragraph, if at all! ;-)
> It was alternately hilarious and revolting to see the
> liberal left getting up in arms about outing a CIA employee in violation
> of the law - a law that was passed with radical pubs like Counterspy and
> Covert Action in mind. What the hell is so sacred about preserving the
> identities of the Ghouls of Langley?
That's not what I said at all (hat it is sacred to preserve the identity of CIA agents). It is, for the US public, probably, so it makes pragmatic sense not to piss on them (the public) if avoidable. But what I said was that this is is an opportunity to demonstrate the dishonesty and danger of the Right. That, by a standard that they (the Right) define and which the public accepts (my assumption), they are guilty of crimes.
> Seems like a bad idea to sacrifice principles (the CIA is a bad thing to
> be opposed whenever possible) for political expediency (oh those
> conservatives - so unprincipled!).
The two parts of the above sentence are not as closely related as implied. For a leftist, there are two principles at play, only one of which is shared by the public:
Principle 1: the CIA is a bad thing to be opposed. Principle 2: Dishonesty, hypocrisy, unprincipled action is a bad thing
It is an error of appearance to assume that pointing out #2 is a violation of #1. Or alternatively: What I, a leftist, am trying to demonstrate (in order to win over the public) is that:
IRRESPECTIVE of what my and ANYONE's position is on #1,
the Right violated principle #2, which is shared by all of us, including the Right (at least in lip service).
Well, there is also the poetic justice of turning one of their own misconceived laws upon them. Nothing prevents us from then moving on to attack the law itself.
Admittedly, this is a slightly (though not by much) subtle point of differentiation (and not necessarily one that is even implied by at least some on the left), but it is significant and clear enough for the public to understand.
> Bush's approval is off its lows, but aside from the year after 9/11,
> it's been a straight downtrend.
Well, in the time after 9/11 IIRC his approval rating was in the 80+ range. I would assume the future could only offer a downtrend, yes?
> A real opposition could do something
> with that.
Yes, the Democrats are not a real opposition. That of course has nothing to do with blogging. Hey, if those who sneer at bloggers are the "real opposition", I would like to know what they (Cockburn and LBO members) have accomplished with that downtrend?
=========== Message 7 =========== Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Alex Cockburn going the Hitchens way?
At around 19/6/06 2:45 pm, Carrol Cox wrote:
>
> ravi wrote:
>> The last sentence alone seems to distance him from reality.
>
> No. The last sentence shows a fine grasp of the realities of any attempt
> to organize mass resistance outside electoral politics. Focusing on
> true conspiracies is as useless an activity as focusing on imaginary
> conspiracies. They all lead away from effective political action.
> Individuals or individual villains are not the problem. The U.S.
> government _at its best_ is the problem.
>
This is not, as far as I can tell, really an argument against my point, but a collection of opinions. I do think its an interesting set of opinions.
=========== Message 8 =========== Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Alex Cockburn going the Hitchens way?
At around 19/6/06 2:51 pm, Carrol Cox wrote:
> ravi wrote:
>>> But, Carl, what appeals to the U.S public has a *huge* impact on
>> ultimate objective reality! A lot more, I will submit, than hoping that
>> one (or a few) CIA operatives will be outed, as part of a larger scheme,
>> by the right, and such outing will rid us of the evils of the CIA.
>
> Nonsense, and serious nonsense. You can't change history by going after
> individuals or individual villains. "The U.S. Public" does not get out
> and demonstrate, raise hell, canvass door-to-door, conduct rallies, rais
> a ruckus at city council meetings, block traffic, disrupt public
> meetings, make it necessary for presidents to give speeches only on
> military bases, close down seaports with strikes. . . .
>
But without influencing the US public through these actions, those performing them will be left with not much more than the actions themselves.
> The U.S. Public says "gee that's terrible" and -- quite sensibly -- goes
> about its business of getting by from day to day.
I believe this is too cynical a view of the people.
=========== Message 9 =========== Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Alex Cockburn going the Hitchens way?
At around 19/6/06 2:48 pm, Michael J. Smith wrote:
> On Monday 19 June 2006 12:27, ravi wrote:
>> [Cockburn] writes:
>>
>>> What was it all about in the first
>>> analysis? Outing a CIA employee. What?s wrong with that?
>> The last sentence alone seems to distance him from reality. What is
>> wrong with outing a CIA employee? In the minds of the American public, I
>> would think, everything!
>
> I'm with him on the subject of outing a CIA agent. Just because
> something makes "the public" indignant is not a sufficient reason to
> adopt it as an issue. "The public" gets pretty het up about flag-burning,
> too, but who cares?
>
I sort of care. I would like to "educate" the U.S public to NOT get het up about flag-burning.
There are two separate things under discussion here:
1. The idea of reality and how the left should act
The reality is that outing a CIA agent is big deal for a vast segment of the public. The reality is that such an act would be considered very wrong. Should the left be opportunistic about using this? Or is this a betrayal of principles, as Doug says?
That, it seems to me, turns on:
2. The badness of the Outing Law
Which as I argue does not pose a contradiction to the left's argument. We can opportunistically seize upon this issue without sacrificing our principles, because we are not in favour of the law, but in favour of principled action, as is the public.
--ravi
-- Support something better than yourself: ;-) PeTA: http://www.peta.org/ GreenPeace: http://www.greenpeace.org/