[lbo-talk] Who knew? John McCain on disability, gets checks

[shag]

i think there's a distinction to be made here. "Good" according to a 
Liberal in the u.s. is most definitely not the same thing as "Good" 
according to someone who uses a class analysis to understand the operations 
of power in society. As Carrol pointed out, "good" for a Liberal is 
fighting the terrorists good 'n' proper. "Good" is giving up in Iraq and 
focusing our energies on the *real* terr'ists. It is, as he said, dancing 
with the enemy.

to explain why it's desirable cannot be done without reference to why it is 
a left position. It doesn't follow that there is only one left position, 
obviously.

shag

At 03:36 PM 6/12/2008, B. wrote:
>Carrol,
>
>Could you please stop saying "such and such should not
>be a left position," etc. and instead say something
>like "such and such would not be the best position to
>take, because..."
>
>That is, just explain why something is desirable,
>good, or bad, or not. Not whether it properly
>constitutes being "left," or not. Especially since
>"the left" also, confusingly, doesn't exist to you, if
>I remember right.
>
>John's notion that military and civilian disabilities
>ought to be assessed by the same criteria seems
>sensible to me. (Or should I say it sounds "properly
>leftist" to me?) Different standards for the warrior
>caste, who it seems we are supposed to treat with
>deference, aren't right.
>
>Someone getting PTSD and thus becoming disabled from
>committing a war crime doesn't get much sympathy from
>me, in any event. Anyone assessed the levels of PTSD
>among Iraqis...?
>
>-B.
>
>
>
>Carrol Cox wrote:
>
>"No MEANS TESTs for benefits should be an absolutely
>non-negotiable left demand. Anything else is dancing
>with the enemy."
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk

http://cleandraws.com
Wear Clean Draws
('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)