patrick.net

Oh, you meant jinx.

‘criminal’-hating

Is criminal-hating a hate crime?

involving extremely gruesome methods of capital punishment

Huh? We only talked about sensible methods like hanging. We oppose any punishment that involves dismemberment, disembowelment, or other forms of excessive pain.

don't the christians say, 'love the sinner, hate the sin'? what happened to that?

i think you guys are more into 'hang the sinner by ther neck until dead, although they'll be alive for a while still, and there are more humane methods which we prefer not to use, because we are really still unreflexive savages at heart'

perhaps the market is to blame for excluding some people from meaningful participation? so they turn to crime as the only way to make money? perhaps there's better ways to encourage civil responsibility in other people? you guys are knee-jerk fools...

i think you guys are more into ‘hang the sinner by ther neck until dead, although they’ll be alive for a while still, and there are more humane methods which we prefer not to use, because we are really still unreflexive savages at heart’

We should all forgive murders by hanging them. What is wrong with that?

Instead of having them live in fear on death row for decades, which is clearly inhumane, they should be given swift execution. From conviction to execution in one month. They should be given expedited appeal and decision so that their executions can proceed as scheduled.

Do you have anyone like this in your family? I do. Believe me, we’ve tried to ‘rehabilitate’ him for damn near 40 years, and you can’t ‘rehabilitate’ someone who doesn’t want to be helped. He’s just moved on from stealing and assaulting family memebers to complete strangers.

Absolutely, SQT. I fully recognise that there is a relatively small minority of people, mostly males, who have all sorts of behavioural problems, and who show recidivist and difficult behaviours. There are also loads of psychopaths in middle and senior management who get rewarded for channeling their brutality towards employees or 'customers' (e.g. realtors), but are too smart to let their urge to hurt, or disregard for, people get them into trouble...

The solution in most countries in the case of violent, difficult cases is to restrain them where they can't do any more harm, but still respect their right of personhood, no matter what mistakes they might have made. It's the curse of the demonic male, unfortunately. The urges that presumably had adaptive survival value in the wild don't work in civilisation. e.g. half of schoolboys out there have low-level ADHD, they're restless and adventurous and need to explore and mess with things... Girls are getting ahead of boys in academic circles because they're relatively quiet, studious and more gifted with language, on average - they run rings around guys in the service economy and 'chattering' occupations. Guys are still out there grunting monosyllabically and constructing buildings... Note that men in prison outnumber women by 10 to 1...

You should read 'Demonic Males' by Dale Peterson & Richard Wrangham: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0395877431/002-1029528-0077604?v=glance&n=283155

You religious right guys want basically an American version of the Taliban cept with Walmart and Jesus and the harder you push the more you alienate most of your own countrymen.

Absolutely. The Bible (OT in particular) is a Middle Eastern cultural document from 3,000 years ago. Look at the punishments in there - same as in the Qu'ran and civil punishments in the middle east. Look at the stuff even in Corinthians about women having to wear veils in the church. And you want to being back harsh death penalties - well, they have weekly beheadings in Saudi Arabia, you guys would love it there. They've even had stonings in Iran of late...

The Jewish people are simply an offshoot of the Arabic/Semitic people, and the whole belief system has flowed through from Judaism and Islam into Dark Ages Europe via Rome and then into America. So American Christian fundamentalists who quote the OT are a living, breathing reflection of Middle Eastern society of 3,000 years ago. At least the NT is a more humane refelction on how to live in a civilised fashion, with the exception of the writings of Paul, who I felt was a regressive influence on the church.

Addendum on religious evolution: Note that monotheism was a religious development in the Middle East, while the rest of the world had polytheistic or animist-type religions...

Some theorists believe most religions are a reflection of the culture and technologies of the societies they develop in - the middle easterners were pastoral herders before desertification, and indeed were the first to domesticate many species of animal - goats, sheep and pigs - which were native to that region - these animals and domestication techniques then spread east and west across lines of latitude into similar climates in Europe, allowing the build-up of surplus and prosperity. The point is, these 'pastoralist' societies tend to see their god as a single shepherd in charge of many sheep, whereas other cultures had a separate god for every natural force as an explanatory mechanism... Look at the multiple gods of the hindus, greeks, romans, germanic, nordic, celtic, south american societies...

The solution in most countries in the case of violent, difficult cases is to restrain them where they can’t do any more harm, but still respect their right of personhood, no matter what mistakes they might have made.

Who is going to pay for all these? It is all but resource allocation.

The solution in most countries in the case of violent, difficult cases is to restrain them where they can’t do any more harm, but still respect their right of personhood, no matter what mistakes they might have made.

Who is going to pay for all these? It is all but resource allocation.

Because human rights are a necessity, not a luxury of 'resource allocation'. The death penalty has never been about 'resources' but is an archaic punishment for serious transgressions - no-one in informed circles has ever argued that it is an economic burden if the death penalty is not applied.

The thing is, given that bad behaviour seems to be genetically inspired in a lot of instances (interacting with environment), then you or your kids or whoever could be unlucky enough to become a criminal - it's the luck of the genetic draw - you don't then go about extinguishing anyone you don't like based on a predisposition they did not choose. Remember that laws and sanctions are culturally relative, you could be killed just for disrespecting an elder in Australian Aboriginal society, for instance.

Alternatively, if the American cultural environment is to blame for criminality, that's not their fault either. Too much libertarianism after 30 years of Dr Ben Spock! It's interesting that Texans are apparently 5 or 6 times as bad as people in other states, going on the death penalty rates...

Regarding the 2 income latchkey kids, that's what happens when you let 'free markets' take hold of everything... work expands to fill the capacities available... property values rise to the level of 2 incomes in a bidding war... hence, a responsible govt would take steps to address these problems - the Aust govt started trying to get moms to stay at home by giving tax breaks, but the lure of 2 incomes and the cost of housing was too much for them... that's what you get for living in a laissez-faire society, sorry about that - the communists had it right after all...

left-wing theofascism

wow.

what does that look like?

except that, in the case of the US, jinx was right:

The good news is that currently the conservatives (neo-con, conservatives and republicans) control the house, senate, supreme court and the white house. (What don't you understand here?) Liberals aren’t in control. At all.

The bad news: This means if things are going wrong it's because the Bush admin is incompetent and conservative policies/strategies are simply not working.

i always think it's hilarious when george dubya says in his empty speechifying 'we detest non-democratic theocracies like iran' when he himself claims to have a hotline to god informing his every move and the last 2 'democratic' federal elections were rigged...

i don't want to be here when bap wakes up...

how do you use wordpress to get smilies, etc? i'm embedding html to do it at present...

You see, Sean, if your only solution to living within the rules is a rule of no rules then you have established a rule in the very act of having a rule against rules. If the law was “anything is ok and nothing is wrong” then what do you do when someone freely decides something actually is wrong ??

but i haven't said there should be no rules. i've simply said there should not be a death penalty, and that civilisation should be more mature and humane than needing one...

and there is more philosophical and sociological thinking and debate behind that view than bap's mind could comprehend or grasp in 10 lives of choosing not to seek an education, so there's no point really trying to argue it...

Alternatively, if the American cultural environment is to blame for criminality, that’s not their fault either.

Death penalty is not about fault assignment. Again, it is deterrence and disposal.

Because human rights are a necessity, not a luxury of ‘resource allocation’.

Criminals are the human rights violators.

the communists had it right after all…

Huh? What?

So Sean, what did that google result show you about how Christians react to Jesus being ridiculed?

oh, i dunno. it just came up with:

- the Crusades
- the Protestant Reformation
- Henry VIII, the Dissolution of the Monasteries and execution of abbots
- Bloody Mary (Mary I of England), Elizabeth I and the Catholic Rebellion
- the Nine Years War in Ireland
- the Spanish Inqusition, involving killing and displacing anyone not Christian in Spain, mostly Muslims
- the witchcraft trials, involving torture and burning at the stake, and the Malleus Maleficarum
- bombing of abortion clinics and killing of doctors
- invasion of Iraq
- Anne Coulter - 'kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity' heh

although those events didn't even involve ridicule, now i think of it...

Your (forgotten) philosophical roots:

Puritanism
One common criticism is that Puritans are fundamentalists. Many pundits posit a Puritan spirit in the United States' political culture, especially in its historical tendency to oppose things such as alcohol and sexuality. Puritans in colonial America were among the most radical Puritans and their social experiment took the form of a Calvinist theocracy.

On the contrary, some critics have credited Puritanism as being the very thing that founded American democracy. This view first appeared in Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America. According to Tocqueville, Puritans were hard-working, egalitarian, and studious.

There are authors who stake out a middle ground, such as James A. Morone, who in his book Hellfire Nation credits opposing tendencies within Puritanism with being the roots of both American democracy, through the desire to improve society and the world as a whole, and on the other hand with paranoia, hate, racism, sexism, and hatred of sexuality and youth.

Christian Fascism
'Christian fascism' is a term used by some to describe what they see as totalitarian fascist politics in the contemporary Christian right, primarily in the United States.

For example, the Reverend Rich Lang of the Trinity United Methodist Church of Seattle, gave a sermon entitled 'George Bush and the Rise of Christian Fascism' in which he said "I want to flesh out the ideology of the Christian Fascism that Mr. Bush articulates. It is a form of Christianity that is the mirror opposite of what Jesus embodied. It is, indeed, the materialization of the spirit of antichrist: a perversion of Christian faith and practice...".

Some who use the term Christian fascism do not describe an existing state of fascism, but rather an emerging proto-fascism, and warn that action is needed to stop the possible emergence of a theocratic fascist state.

Because human rights are a necessity, not a luxury of ‘resource allocation’.

Criminals are the human rights violators.

Yes, but my whole point is that you're lowering yourself to their level, and what you are doing is not well grounded in ethical philosophy or logic. If you disentangle it, you are really acting as badly as they are, so you are no morally better than they are. It is an archaic system that demands 'an eye for an eye...etc'

Remember theft only really started once people started to acquire things. Under the 'primitive communism' of Australian Aboriginals, all property was collectively owned and shared. All objects had to be given and shared on request, under a system of 'mutual reciprocity'.

Once horticultural societies evolved requiring a constant settlement for the long-term cultivation of crops and keeping of animals, man's tendency for theft and warfare seem to come to the fore, as it was easier to take a grown crop or animal rather than raising it yourself. After 200 000 of hunter-gather existence, this heralded the beginning of an age of accumulation and social stratification which may be only 10 000 years old.

The point is that present-day Western 'property rights' are entirely different to the co-operative rights of hunter-gatherers. In Aboriginal society, if you ask a relative for something, they are obliged to give it to you, no matter what it is. You in turn can do the same if they have something that you want or need. In this fashion, all the goods of a tribe are in constant circulation. This represents some 200 000 years of the hunter-gatherer social grouping pattern, by far the longest period of human history.

They would regard the hoarding, accumulation and social stratification of Westerners as greedy, selfish and incredibly anti-social, no good and completely destructive to the welfare of the tribe.

As did the North American Indians when conquered by Europeans.

So, which set of rights do you want to make reference to when you kill someone?

Yes, but my whole point is that you’re lowering yourself to their level, and what you are doing is not well grounded in ethical philosophy or logic.

I am sure it is very well grounded in utilitarianism.

Why are you preaching communism?

so utilitarianism then is morally wrong. I suppose we could mulch up dead people from hospitals and feed them to pigs to save waste, according to utilitarian theory, but I don't think that would be acceptable to most people, yourself excepted, presumably.

the communists had it right after all…

Huh? What?

that 'capitalism contains the seeds of its own destruction' - SQT maintains that it is breaking down families and the very fabric of society. People can't afford houses, children are running wild, crime is up, people are baying for the death penalty...

Marx simply asked for a system which 'gave to each according to their need, and asked from each according to their ability'.

That's why I am preaching Communism, just as Jesus did. ; )

In fact, as I said earlier, 'libertarianism' can scarcely be distinguished form Communism.

Marx wanted freedom from the '5 alienations' of present-day working life, of the alienation of workers from each other, from their work, from their lives, and from themselves, as created by the monotonous process work and atomisation of tasks in the early Industrial Revolution, compared with the craftsmen of earlier times and family-based businesses.

He saw a 'withering away of the state' as an end-point of Communism, also. Not that that has been achieved by Russia, China, Cuba, etc, which are really capitalist 'command economies' still.

Note that it suited the elite ruling class of America to demonise the Russians, Chinese, etc as they were afraid of losing their wealth and power if the ideas of Communism took hold in America. So they started another 1984-style propaganda war against Communism, infecting the general population, maintaining a troubled regressive welfare state and thus ensuring they could keep their wealth and power and status, while the ordinary people of America mouthed anti-Communist slogans and toiled in relative poverty - until progressive policies like the New Deal and GI Bill came along, only to be eroded in recent times with concomitant rises in drug-taking, social malaise and anomie, and the creation of a winner-take-all society which praises the winners and abandons and demonises the losers...

That’s not about capitalism, it’s about greed and social status.

Is there a difference?

But the market system and all economic transactions ultimately are all about meeting human desires, and many of those desires are about status-seeking, and the seeking of esteem through the admiration of oneself or others.

Do you really need a BMW, or a Rolls Royce? Do you really need to cycle your clothes every year as fashion changes, before they're worn out? Do you really need to buy overpriced 'designer' labels and brands? Do you really need a 10 bedroom house? etc. It's more about concern for what others will think of you, or how you will think of yourself.

All I ever heard was that the vast majority of Russians were quite poor and lived terribly. I also know the rate of alcoholism in Russia was astronomical during communist times.

The Russian peasants were quite poor and lived terribly before the Russian Revolution also - that's why it happened! The European Russian aristocrats had a great life, and wasted money on wars, while peasants lived a serf-like lifestyle. Marxian theory suggests that such a revolution should not even be successful, as Russia was an overwhelmingly poor, pre-industrial country - he suggested that communism was an inevitable, post-capitalistic phase of social and political evolution. Of course, that's only his theory, and he felt he was somehow uncovering the laws of history.

However, Marxist messages appeal most to downtrodden 'peasant'-style people around the world in poor countries, which is why they're always trying for Communist revolutions, especially when most of the wealth is known to be held by a corrupt handful at the top, as per many South American countries.

Jean Baudrillard is best known for his formulation of the notion of hyperreality, and in particular hyperreality in the United States. According to Baudrillard, America has constructed itself a world that is more 'real' than real, and where those inhabiting it are obsessed with timelessness, perfection, and objectification of the self. Furthermore, authenticity has been replaced by copy (thus reality is replaced by a substitute), and nothing is "real," though those engaged in the illusion are incapable of seeing it. Instead of having experiences, people observe spectacles, via real or metaphorical control screens. Instead of the real, we have simulation and simulacra.

While early in his career he was influenced by Marxism, he eventually came to the conclusion that Marx's attitudes were in mirror opposition to that of capitalist thought, and that Marx in fact held the same basic worldview as the capitalist. For instance, he did not question such concepts as "work" or "value". In short, while perhaps well-intentioned, he argued that Marx was infected by the "virus of bourgeois thought". In opposition, he proposed a concept of symbolic exchange, a "cycle of gifts and countergifts", similar to a gift economy. However, in time he began to prefer the idea of a system based around seduction, involving "the charms of pure and mere games, superficial rituals". While he gives such possible alternatives, he sees little hope in any repair of the social world, but rather a further progression into a hyperreal system offering little distinction between what is real and what is not. He sees the United States and Japan as having moved furthest in this direction, noting for instance that his decision to visit the United States stemmed from his desire to seek "the finished form of the future catastrophe."

I’d rather take my chances with capitalism.

I'd rather not. Not with fossil fuels about to run out, wars of conquest for resources under pretexts, etc. Some revision is necessary. Further, there are 'communist' elements of thinking in everyday life by everyday people which serve, to some extent, to mitigate the worsts excesses of capitalism.

The social democrat states of Europe such as France, Germany, Scandinavia have a much better social settlement, more equality, less wage multiples, better welfare state, etc, so it is possible.

To keep reiterating that 'whatever we have now, it must be the best, and nothing could possibly be better' is just stupidity itself, and I get tired of hearing this same fatalistic bullshit from Americans.

The social democrat states of Europe such as France, Germany, Scandinavia have a much better social settlement, more equality, less wage multiples, better welfare state, etc, so it is possible.

Are “social democrat” states the same thing as communism?

hmm, are those countries operating under Communist systems? The point was that the social democrat countries of Europe have a reasonable balance between the family, the state and the market in terms of arriving at a good social settlement. Libertarianism is about shrinking the state, and it's a common call from various US politicians - something about making it small enough to drown in a bathtub. However, I believe that makes the mistake of putting too much trust in the market, and leaves very little by way of a safety net, except for the family - which one may not have, or which may possess too few resources. Further, the American mistrust of govt stems to some extent from a historical baggage of fear of capricious English rule.

No. I’m actually trying to figure out if the discussion is sincere or we’re all being baited by someone who likes the attention.

A different, researched, thoughtful and informed view is baiting? [Sigh] Things seemed so much simpler in the old days when we just sat around torturing evil criminals and watching NBL playoffs...

unwanted and unproductive? because there's not a unanimous consensus on torturing evil criminals and holding public beheadings every Friday?

one-sided? Ditto. Is that like the multi-lateral UN-endorsed invasion of oil-rich countries? I think America is accused more of being one-sided these days, isn't it?

anti-American? Well, if you were decent human beings and weren't so grasping and...one-sided... all the time...

ultra-lib? Shame about getting an international perspective and an education. Ruins a good mind... Let's go back to talking about spark plugs and gas mileage and Bennifer and Brangelina and welfare moms and... guns... and... evil criminals...

unwanted? Go back to agreeing on how best to go about torturing evil criminals then... The manual of the Spanish Inquisitors has a few good pointers...is that helpful?

hee hee

I know, I know, I'm not giving enough income away as tax.

The Governator was right when he said that Californians are paying tax all day long, and it's TOO MUCH! These 30% taxing countries at the bottom of the tax heap - it's TOO MUCH...

I don't really like seeing my tax going into a huge defence spending program and enriching Lockheed Martin executives, to be honest - and I'm writing this in a different 30% taxing country who've slavishly signed onto the F-35 program. On the other hand, US defence employs so many people who otherwise might not have jobs, it's like a substitute welfare system...

Here at least I suppose the 30% taxes go into free medical care for the whole country, and cheap pharmaceuticals - $3 scripts for pensioners, free doctor's visits, etc. - and a very cheap university system where the govt subsidises 80% of the fees, and various other public goods.

You're incarcerating people at 6-10 times the going rate in other countries, and yet you insist others aren't walking a mile in anyone's shoes? I was just musing on a quote from the great American classic To Kill A Mockingbird, as a matter of fact, in the context of the posters who want to torture evil criminals...

"First of all," he [Atticus] said, "if you can learn a simple trick, Scout, you'll get along a lot better with all kinds of folks. You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view-until you climb into his skin and walk around in it."

My effort and involvement at present, apart from working full-time and studying part-time in healthcare, is to put up a housing blog, agitate with politicians by writing dozens of letters, to fill in the economic blanks conveniently left out by the media breathlessly reporting 'GDP growth', and to go on and create a full website this year in time for the state election. This includes taking them to task for leaving all forms of housing in the open market, including housing solutions for the homeless. Beyond contributing to a local politics speakers group and donating small sums to them. Oh well, I tried...

I've personally given up on some academics and most politicians...

and I never pay more than $3.40 for a coffee...

I have always thought it odd that Libs dont wright the IRS a little extra check just to help fund the programs they love soooooo much.

Exactly. Instead, it always becomes "let's tax the other guy to death for the wonderful programs." I do support some pgrograms, but they have to be cost beneficial.

You’re incarcerating people at 6-10 times the going rate in other countries, and yet you insist others aren’t walking a mile in anyone’s shoes?

I would rather not sending most criminals to prison. There should be programs for minor offenders to do meaningful things (like community service). It is just more economical.

Jailing people is not the answer, I agree.

P.S.

Marxist/Communist states provided a social guarantee of full employment, universal access to affordable housing, and universal access to other social goods such as healthcare. I think these are good social guarantees for any government to be able to make to its citizens. Marx predicted that most crime would wither away if people's material needs were met, as most crime was a material problem. No more need to torture impoverished evil criminals!

The price of housing could be seen as a manipulation by one sector of a capitalist society of others - people with capital - developers, investors, banks - are controlling real estate and bleeding everyone else dry in a process of slow strangulation.

The legal system that protects property also protects the interests of these people. In fact, Marx saw most laws as constructions of the propertied classes designed to protect their interests.

"The capitalist system must continuously reproduce itself. Most explicit it is the state that promotes the capitalist order. By its coercive force, embodied in law and legal repression, the social and economic order of capitalism has been traditionally secured (Refer; See Richard Quinney, Critique of Legal Order; Crime Control in Capitalist Society; Boston; Little Brown, 1974, pp 95-135). The legal system continues to be the means of enforcing the interests of the capitalist economy. The state's coercive force however is but one means of maintaining the social and economic order. A subtler way of reproducing capitalist society is to perpetuate the capitalist conception of reality, a non-violent but equally repressive means of domination. Alan Wolf explains below that in manipulating consciousness the social order is legitimated and secured:

The most important reproductive mechanism, which does not involve the use of state violence is consciousness-manipulation. The liberal state has an enormous amount of violence at its disposal, but is often reluctant to use it. Violence manipulates consciousness to such an extent that most people would never think of engaging in the kinds of action that could be repressed. The most perfectly repressive (though not violently so) capitalist system, in other words, would not be a police state, but the complete opposite, one in which there were no police because there was nothing to police, everyone having accepted the legitimacy of that society and all its daily consequences. (See Alan Wolf, Political and the Liberal State Monthly Review, 23; December, 1971, P-20)

Those who rule in capitalist society, with the assistance of the state, not only accumulate capital at the expense of those who work but impose their ideology as well. Expropriating consciousness legitimizes oppression and exploitation; Labour is expropriated, consciousness must too (See Alan Wolf, New Dimensions in the Marxist Theory of Politics Politics and Society, 4 (winter 1974) pp. 155-157). In fact, the legitimacy of the capitalist order is maintained by controlling the populations consciousness. A capitalist hegemony is established.

The more highly developed the productive forces under capitalism the greater the discrepancy between productive forces and capitalist relations of production. Capitalist development, for which economic expansion is fundamental, exacerbates rather than mitigates the contradictions of capitalism (Refer; Erik Olin Wright; Alternative Perspectives in the Marxist Theory of Accumulation and Crisis; The Insurgent Sociologist, 6 (Fall 1975), pp 5-39). Workers are further exploited, conditions of existence worsen, and the contradictions of capitalism increase. Capitalist development, from another vantage point, creates the conditions for transforming and abolishing capitalism, brought about in actuality by class struggle."

Capitalism systematically generates a surplus population, an unemployed sector of the working class either dependent on fluctuations in the economy or made obsolete by new technology. As the surplus population grows, population builds for the welfare system to expand. Growing welfare with its host of services is designed to control the surplus population. Moreover, as James O'Connor observes, unable to gain employment to the monopoly industries by offering their labour power at lower than wage rates (and victimized by sexism and racism), and unemployed, under-employed, or employed at low wages in competitive industries, the surplus population increasingly becomes dependent on the State (See James O Connor: The Fiscal Crisis of the State, (New York: St. Martins Press, 1973), P. 161). An unsteady alliance is formed between the state and the casualties it naturally produces. Only a new economic order could wipe out the need for a welfare state.

http://www.thecheers.org/article_93_Crime-in-Society.html

etc.. well worth a read...

Marxist/Communist states provided a social guarantee of full employment, universal access to affordable housing, and universal access to other social goods such as healthcare.

You can believe whatever you like to believe.

I am about to give up.

Marina is Prime

heh

I am just suspicious when people talk about politics, religion or basically any social ideal that is based on putting aside all of our baser instincts and putting our fellow man first.

I think people may put away all their baser instincts when they are very sleepy or very drunk. If we can keep the population in this altered state of consciousness, it may just work. :)

Unless of course you mean when they’re so drunk they’re comatose, then you might have a point.

That's what I meant. :)

by throwing out a bunch of stats and info the supposedly contradict the prevalent opinion on the topic.

Sorry, this is BS, SQT. The 'prevalent opinions' are only a bunch of people who don't actually work in law enforcement and are in no way policy makers. Further, I've pointed to opinions held more commonly than by the posters on a world scale. Many other countries abhor the practices of the US on a range of fronts. The stats are real and convincing. You seem to prefer uneducated prejudices over real statistics, which is a reversal of the normal scientific practice of evaluating evidence. That's your prerogative, I suppose, but it is neither rational nor reasonable. I argue that bloodthirstiness is a little immoral and unconscionable, but the general public is unquestionably bloodthirsty - however, in most advanced countries, that has worked its way out of the system of jurisprudence, where wiser heads have prevailed...

The only thing that bothers me is when people start talking about `the good of all mankind’ but they don’t live the philosophy. I worked at a Christian school, and believe me I met a lot of bullshit artists. I have nothing against an honest to goodness Christian, but I have a strong dislike for those who profess to love their fellow man and do everything they can to screw you over when you’re not looking.

This is even more BS. You are now accusing every well-meaning person of 'screwing people over'. I know lots of people who work in NGOs, voluntary organisations, church benevolent groups, healthcare, etc who are by nature very altruistic and caring. Of course, you may be talking about the narrow American experience again, where a whole culture is predicated on greed, fakery and being self-serving. As I said earlier, 'capitalism contains the seeds of its own destruction'. The American way is just to internalise all the problems into the individual, become fatalistic and individualistic, and lead a life saturated with contingency. Then only small random acts of charity are allowed to stand against the system.

I believe Marxism contains elements of things that would make the world a better place.

I don't know that talk without action is pointless, plenty of people make a living by talking and getting the word out - an act of communication can be an act of education. I don't know how I've learnt anything much in this life without hearing it from someone else or reading it in a book. I presume all the heads of NGOs that I listen to to get an informed opinion are wasting everyone's time, in fact, and they should be engaged in low-level acts of individual charity without trying to address the roots of the problem, or soliciting Federal funding to do it, etc. We should all just listen to Fox News to get the real story and let them do all that fine work for us, ferreting out the truth. But that's all just talk and no action also, I guess...

Didn't I list my 'actions' in a recent post? Don't you think an act of lobbying, communication and education to politicians and their agencies is action? Creating blogs and websites? Appearing on the media? Being published in the newspapers? What qualifies as worthwhile action in your lexicon then? If I could, I would buy up a whole suburb and develop it as affordable, sustainable housing, but I don't have the readies for that at present... There's too much to discuss re talk/action than this space permits - there are so many instances of fuck-ups by the state govt here that they are about to get voted out - better communication and consultation with the public would have forestalled the problems. Not to mention an articulation of a philosophy of particpative democracy - but that's more of SQT's apparently 'random philosophy' again, I suppose.

Some of my philosophical posts have been wry gags, to be honest. But it has certainly brought out the lack of sociological interest in the group - everyone complains about housing prices, but they have no systemic or political fix in mind, except to bag out 'baby boomers'. My website proposes a number of workable fixes. Unfortinately, SQT seems not to enjoy any sort of 'life of the mind', and the value of her college degree, whatever it was, is therefore questionable - she seems to have learnt nothing of the major discourses of the last century from it.

You're beginning to disqualfy yourself from reasonable debate and discussion...

Touched a nerve with you at least, obviously. I'm glad you realise how full of BS the American media is. As per the 'random philosophical' quote about Baudrillard I posted above. Or is that pearls before swine?

I'm certainly not a member of the media at all. However, there are some very good journalists at the Herald here, and I've used their reports and analysis heavily in my housing affordability blog. Ross Gittins in particular, as economics editor, tells it very much the way it is. That's the beauty of doing sociology - you have a solid analytical framework to separate wheat from chaff - like the Realtor buzzlines thread, and the question of whether the bubble is going to burst like the Tulip Boom or the Tech Wreck - and the way capital shifts easily between 'markets', thus doing more harm than good in the case of housing.

Unfortunately, it's a brave newspaper that publishes stories that go against its revenue base of advertising, particularly real estate advertising - the Herald should be congratulated for its fairly frank and fearless reporting, although it is a little schizophrenic at times when it has to publish puff pieces and advertorials on real estate in the Sunday Supplement or whatever... But it's a very big broadsheet paper serving a population of 5 million...

I'm also doing media appearances soon, and getting articles submitted to whatever papers are prepared to print things that go against their advertising base. Also talking with minor political parties going against the 'Big Two' to provide disaffected voters with more voices in Parliament, being those parties who support affordable housing. (Unfortunately, having a few Independents in Parliament often leads to a system of horsetrading and bribes to get key legislation through. Having some decent representation from a 3rd and 4th party like the Greens or whoever with some principles is another story.) If I succeed in scaring the Labor Party into doing something constructive, and possibly get a couple more smaller party candidates elected, then I would consider I'd done something very worthwhile. I could even start a 'single issue' party of my own, it's been done before on unpopular themes, like low-flying aircraft noise over the suburbs.

I see affordable housing as a social justice issue across the spectrum of housing. I know a few people who work in govt in supported housing, and they're actually pretty blinkered and ignorant, and are just doing the job for the $$$ and learning just enough govt-speak to get by, and unfortunately, learning the jargon and getting embedded in band-aid govt structures is all you need to do to get the job. And they're getting paid for that - the lobbying I do is for nothing. (As per the Marxist analysis of crime above that suggests the welfare state is a band-aid attempt at social control by capitalists. Maybe not so random after all, if you 'get' it.)

There are people working for outfits like ACOSS, and all the COSSes in each state who really do nothing but 'bullshit' on behalf of low income people in order to get them a better deal and more funding for supported housing, fare concessions, better employment, and a fair go, etc. and these people, when fulltime, get a 'survival wage' of $40-50 K to be worked extremely hard researching, analysing, lobbying and writing recommendations and reports, and doing cogent television sound bites. Apparently, all that effort and lobbying on behalf of the downtrodden is just 'bullshit', and somehow won't change anything - people are better off being left in the dark about poverty, so that they can feed their own uninformed little prejudices. Coming from a journalist too, mind you... a journalist who doesn't believe in doing any research or examining statistics and thinks all written output is meaningless...

Anyway, I'm off to my 6.00 politics talk -
http://www.politicsinthepub.org/current.htm

Here's one example of where political activism might lead, straight from the Politics page above to sourcewatch.org. But it's all BS of course, and America is the greatest country in the world even tho millions don't have health insurance, whereas in other countries healthcare is free to all citizens and PRs, etc. And if you don't like it, you can leave! Why don't you leave? Just don't ever think of criticising it in the hope of improvement.

Note Wal-Mart pays about $6/hour, and the CEO recently said, having seen the living conditions in NO after Katrina, 'maybe we should think about raising the US minimum wage - our customers are impoverished and can barely afford our stuff' - not to mention their own workers! But let's not talk about social improvement, SQT will get upset...

http://www.prwatch.org/spin

Wal-Mart's Blog Outreach-Turned-Ghostwriting
Topics: corporations | internet | public relations
Source: New York Times, March 7, 2006
Wal-Mart "began working with bloggers in late 2005 'as part of our overall effort to tell our story,' said Mona Williams, a company spokeswoman." Heading the blogger outreach is Marshall Manson, of the PR firm Edelman. Manson contacted bloggers who "wrote postings that either endorsed the retailer or challenged its critics." He emailed one, "I'd like to drop you the occasional update ... and an occasional nugget that you won't hear about in the M.S.M.," or mainstream media. But "some bloggers have posted information from Wal-Mart, at times word for word, without revealing where it came from," reports the New York Times. Manson warned bloggers they might be "ripped" if someone noticed "nearly identical posts" copied from his emails. Wal-Mart's also opposing state bills that require large companies to spend a minimum percentage of payroll costs on health insurance. Wal-Mart claims, "These bills ... do nothing to take people off America's uninsured list," reports PR Week.

oh, never mind...