[WS:] Fair enough. But to pursue your crude analogy - it would matter quite a bit who put the contract on, no? The lefties maintain it was O's administration - I say bollocks. If anything, O's administration was a hit man who carried out contract in a way to inflict minimum collateral damage.
Every political party in a democracy is responsive to power balance. It must be or otherwise it would be wiped out of their existence. Currently the power balance is such that the capital has all the power while its opponents have very little, if any. It is utterly naive to expect any political party to side with those who have no power against those who have a lot of power.
Any political party in this situation would go with the dictates of power.
If anything, O's administration deserves a credit for accomplishing what they did in this situation - they faced a force majeure and they softened the blow a bit.
Wojtek
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 4:04 PM, Miles Jackson <cqmv at pdx.edu> wrote:
> Alan Rudy wrote:
>
>> Yes, all of Chuck's and other evidence to the contrary nothwithstanding,
>> there is surely absolutely no reason to think that they've done what
>> they've
>> done on purpose and because we can't read there minds
>>
>
> {snippage]
>
> This is exactly why I share Carrol's lack of patience for parsing people's
> political motives. In terms of the political and social effects of O's
> administration, O's motivations and intentions are irrelevant. --A crude
> analogy: a gun goes off, someone dies. That person will remain dead
> regardless of the intent of the person who fired the gun. (Saying "it was
> an accident, I didn't mean to do it" won't alter the effects of the gun
> shot.)
>
> Miles
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>