Is Freedom possible without Justice?
Freedom is a slippery term. To try and discuss freedom is like trying to catch a fish with your bare hands. Good luck with that!
I could have chosen to use the word liberty or democracy. But I didn't: Because I think the word freedom has been misused like bait to ensnare us into falsehood and wrong-doing. As if freedom were so important that anything should be traded away, just to make sure we have freedom (or the illusion of it). Indeed I'm beginning to wonder if we would be better off as a nation if we defined ourselves as a justice-loving people, seeking to ensure justice for all, rather than trying to remind ourselves over and over that our over-riding goal must be freedom.
So many trite phrases. Land of the free, home of the brave. I'm beginning to wish it was "the home of justice." Remember that phrase of bush? "They hate us for our freedoms." Boy, doesn't that just sound like we have something so precious and they are after it or out to destroy it? And therefore we must protect "it" at all costs. But what is this "freedom" that we must protect, so much, that we're willing to wage a war of choice, abduct people, and torture them in the name of protecting our freedom? At what price have we traded our so-called freedom? At the price of Justice.
What about free market? Now there's a term that looks like bait to me! Call anything in America "free" and you can sell it like hotcakes! That term has been misused to dupe people into believing that insurance companies can provide health care. And that without insurance companies you don't have a free health care market place. Who goes to a market for health care? And where is this free market that provides health care? Cuz I wanna go there and get some - especially for free!
I love how these people want to sell us on the free market and on the necessity of trading our freedom - in exchange for spying on ourselves, for abducting and torturing, for waging war - cuz the home of the brave is so afraid? How they are forever trying to convince us that we are a christian nation... Yup, these things go together for the folks trying to bait us into enacting their policies: christian, freedom, and family values. Except none of those words mean what you think they mean - at least not for the folks "selling" policies that would discriminate against gay people, against brown people (trying to sneak into our "free country" and partake of our freedoms!). Yup, these same freedom-loving folk want to keep our freedoms for the free market and for those who live in the gated communities and go to the private schools and get bonuses for driving companies off cliffs!
Just to remind our freedom-loving christianists:
I looked up the words freedom and justice in the Bible. Because of this PR campaign that's out to dupe us into going down a road where we'll trade anything to call ourselves a free nation. A free christian nation. You can try it for yourself right now. Look up "freedom" and you get 21 times it's used in the whole bible. Mostly in the Old Testament, connected with "freeing" slaves and captives. You might also be interested to know that the Old Testament mandates you treat the "alien" among you "as your neighbor." (Tell that to your republican politician who wants to jail folks for wanting to join us in this "free" country!) But I digress. Of those 21 times freedom appears in the bible, not once does it appear in the gospels! Let me repeat that: Not once!
On the other hand, when I looked up justice I found 194 citations in the bible. Whereas freedom is associated with liberating people from slavery and captivity and wrong-doing (sin), justice is associated with the divine and as something we should all strive to do. Justice particularly appears in moral codes. It shows up a lot in the prophets, who constantly call people to do justice or who promise a time of justice, when it will flow down like a river. Whereas freedom does not show up in the gospels, justice shows up associated with prophetic speech, very like the Old Testament usage of justice. Which is not surprising actually, given than Jesus was a Jew.
Now I'm not writing here in an effort to convert anyone. But I am writing in this vein because our opponents, those who want to claim the mantle of patriotism and the American way, are misusing terms to dupe the American public. And I'm tired of it!
I'm sincerely asking: Is freedom possible without justice? You could even turn this question around. You could ask whether a nation that pursues justice, teaches children to pursue it, rewards adults who pursue it, gives bonuses to bosses who pursue it, encourages political parties to pursue it, would actually embody freedom, democracy, equality and so on - all through aiming at justice first.
Sometimes it's important to disentangle means and ends. And I wonder if freedom, which must be limited - so that everyone has some - is more of a means rather than an end (like free speech and freedom to vote). And I wonder if Justice is an End. One of those ends that is endless. Where we can try and try to achieve it, to embody it, to make it central to our life. But we will never plumb its depths no matter how hard or how long we try.
Could we not try to become a nation of justice? Of justice for all. Could we not concern ourselves with justice in every aspect of civic life? From family, to neighborhood, to state or country, or the whole world. It seems to me that if we truly pursue justice we cannot but achieve a measure of freedom for all.
I could have chosen to use the word liberty or democracy. But I didn't: Because I think the word freedom has been misused like bait to ensnare us into falsehood and wrong-doing. As if freedom were so important that anything should be traded away, just to make sure we have freedom (or the illusion of it). Indeed I'm beginning to wonder if we would be better off as a nation if we defined ourselves as a justice-loving people, seeking to ensure justice for all, rather than trying to remind ourselves over and over that our over-riding goal must be freedom.
So many trite phrases. Land of the free, home of the brave. I'm beginning to wish it was "the home of justice." Remember that phrase of bush? "They hate us for our freedoms." Boy, doesn't that just sound like we have something so precious and they are after it or out to destroy it? And therefore we must protect "it" at all costs. But what is this "freedom" that we must protect, so much, that we're willing to wage a war of choice, abduct people, and torture them in the name of protecting our freedom? At what price have we traded our so-called freedom? At the price of Justice.
What about free market? Now there's a term that looks like bait to me! Call anything in America "free" and you can sell it like hotcakes! That term has been misused to dupe people into believing that insurance companies can provide health care. And that without insurance companies you don't have a free health care market place. Who goes to a market for health care? And where is this free market that provides health care? Cuz I wanna go there and get some - especially for free!
I love how these people want to sell us on the free market and on the necessity of trading our freedom - in exchange for spying on ourselves, for abducting and torturing, for waging war - cuz the home of the brave is so afraid? How they are forever trying to convince us that we are a christian nation... Yup, these things go together for the folks trying to bait us into enacting their policies: christian, freedom, and family values. Except none of those words mean what you think they mean - at least not for the folks "selling" policies that would discriminate against gay people, against brown people (trying to sneak into our "free country" and partake of our freedoms!). Yup, these same freedom-loving folk want to keep our freedoms for the free market and for those who live in the gated communities and go to the private schools and get bonuses for driving companies off cliffs!
Just to remind our freedom-loving christianists:
Act with justice and righteousness, and deliver from the hand of the oppressor anyone who has been robbed. And do no wrong or violence to the alien, the orphan, and the widow, nor shed innocent blood...
Jeremiah 22:3
I looked up the words freedom and justice in the Bible. Because of this PR campaign that's out to dupe us into going down a road where we'll trade anything to call ourselves a free nation. A free christian nation. You can try it for yourself right now. Look up "freedom" and you get 21 times it's used in the whole bible. Mostly in the Old Testament, connected with "freeing" slaves and captives. You might also be interested to know that the Old Testament mandates you treat the "alien" among you "as your neighbor." (Tell that to your republican politician who wants to jail folks for wanting to join us in this "free" country!) But I digress. Of those 21 times freedom appears in the bible, not once does it appear in the gospels! Let me repeat that: Not once!
On the other hand, when I looked up justice I found 194 citations in the bible. Whereas freedom is associated with liberating people from slavery and captivity and wrong-doing (sin), justice is associated with the divine and as something we should all strive to do. Justice particularly appears in moral codes. It shows up a lot in the prophets, who constantly call people to do justice or who promise a time of justice, when it will flow down like a river. Whereas freedom does not show up in the gospels, justice shows up associated with prophetic speech, very like the Old Testament usage of justice. Which is not surprising actually, given than Jesus was a Jew.
Now I'm not writing here in an effort to convert anyone. But I am writing in this vein because our opponents, those who want to claim the mantle of patriotism and the American way, are misusing terms to dupe the American public. And I'm tired of it!
I'm sincerely asking: Is freedom possible without justice? You could even turn this question around. You could ask whether a nation that pursues justice, teaches children to pursue it, rewards adults who pursue it, gives bonuses to bosses who pursue it, encourages political parties to pursue it, would actually embody freedom, democracy, equality and so on - all through aiming at justice first.
Sometimes it's important to disentangle means and ends. And I wonder if freedom, which must be limited - so that everyone has some - is more of a means rather than an end (like free speech and freedom to vote). And I wonder if Justice is an End. One of those ends that is endless. Where we can try and try to achieve it, to embody it, to make it central to our life. But we will never plumb its depths no matter how hard or how long we try.
Could we not try to become a nation of justice? Of justice for all. Could we not concern ourselves with justice in every aspect of civic life? From family, to neighborhood, to state or country, or the whole world. It seems to me that if we truly pursue justice we cannot but achieve a measure of freedom for all.
Advertisement









You said it would take a few days and bam! Here it is. Good points. You must, we must, fight for justice everyday. That pursuit is never ending.
"You could ask whether a nation that pursues justice, teaches children to pursue it, rewards adults who pursue it, gives bonuses to bosses who pursue it, encourages political parties to pursue it, would actually embody freedom, democracy, equality and so on - all through aiming at justice first."
There is a lot of freedom for the top 1/2% of our population who own 40% of everything! And that caste seems to struggle to get more and more and therefore take more and more away from the rest.
I shall think about this some more and read the hundred comments that follow.
February 23, 2009 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
dd, your faith in me knows no bounds! :)
I think we need to watch the use of the term "freedom" or "free" this or that. Because it is in such subtle ways that the repubs bend the public to their will. Or seek to. And we need to arm ourselves here. For a struggle of such proportions as we may never have known. It's like a battle on our own shores. A battle for the heart and soul of America!
I've only really started a conversation. At least I hope it starts one. :)
February 23, 2009 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Love your comment - I must tell you this, Thera.
So many trite phrases. Land of the free, home of the brave. I'm beginning to wish it was "the home of justice." Remember that phrase of bush? "They hate us for our freedoms." Boy, doesn't that just sound like we have something so precious and they are after it or out to destroy it?
Two summers ago, I read Christ Stopped at Eboli, Carlo Levi's account of the years he spent as a political exile in South Italy under Mussolini. When Mussolini invaded Abyssinia, as it was known then, he addressed the country by radio. Levi tells us that this is what Mussolini said about Abyssinia, word for word, on the radio in Italy in 1935:
They hate us for our freedoms.
I mean it literally when I say that cold chills came out all over me
when I read that.
February 23, 2009 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wonderful to see you here again, Tena! Glad you liked this!
Oh, my God! I'm going to search and see if I find a link for that on the web!
Thank you for the info!
February 23, 2009 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. Number one comment for the day.
February 23, 2009 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
And I agree with you about justice versus "freedom" and I think Carlo Levi would have agreed with you, too.
February 23, 2009 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
W/apologies for the thread-jack:
Hi, Tena - glad to see you back. Was gonna e-mail you last week, but I lost your e-mail address. If you still have mine, would you forward yours?
Cheers -
L @ Taos Pueblo
February 23, 2009 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
So glad to see your pretty face, ma'am.
February 23, 2009 11:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Thera, I'm just lunch-browsing around and then you hit me with this wall. - a good wall :-)
i'm still new here, but are you throwing around questions like this all the time? Unbelievable...
so here's the pug trying to catch fish with his stubby little paws.
1. 'freedom' is an incomplete expression without the 'from ...'
2. If 'freedom' is 'freedom from injustice' then you have your answer.
3. If 'freedom' is 'freedom to flourish' in one of its many senses, then things get prickly. Not that I want to defend injustice. But you have the flourishing of the individual and the flourishing of the community. If you opt for the latter like a platonist you end up with something that looks nothing like justice. If you opt for the former, you can go Nietzsche's way and you don't get anything recognizable as justice either. okay the pug's losing his fish now
just thought I'd throw that out there.
February 23, 2009 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose
February 23, 2009 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is the greatest freedom. Inner freedom. If we can achieve that, we are truly free.
February 23, 2009 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
damn! that was my number 4!
February 23, 2009 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, you know I could have written this from any number of perspectives, going any number of ways. You've got freedom "from" and freedom "for" and you've got many kinds of freedom and such latitude in how freedom is limited or not. For example:
A. I'm free to drive a car, so long as I'm licensed, not "under the influence," wearing my approved glasses, so long as the car is registered, insured (in most states), has all its requisite required safety and EPA features, and I follow the rules of the road.
B. I'm free to marry, so long as I'm of age and my intended spouse is of the opposite sex (in all but a few states).
C. I'm free to have a child. Period!
D. I'm free to vote if I'm of age and a citizen and registered.
So I looked at those things. And I considered freedom of religion and of speech and assembly.
But I was really more interested in the way that "freedom" has been stretched as a term for use in political persuasion and propaganda. In the way that America touts itself as "better than" but at the same time treats its own people (and even many other countries ) as "worse" than.
So I realize you could quibble all day about the specific meanings of freedom - but I really wanted to move on to connecting it with "justice" - of which I've written a great deal of late, though I didnn't link to all those blogs.
Please keep nibbling at the edges, however. Because my intent is to start a conversation and to get us to look carefully under rocks and listen carefully for the discordant meanings.
I think this is an important thing to mull over. To reconsider what are our national values and how we prioritize them.
Once again, you're talking just beyond where I'm able to follow. I have think on all you've said.
And if somebody else can put this together in a more cogent way, that I can agree with, great!
February 23, 2009 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, I've missed all the past stuff, will take a look...
February 23, 2009 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Try here. And it pretty much links back to all of them (or most).
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/therap/2009/02/in-the-service-of-justice.php
:)
February 23, 2009 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
thanks. hope its not another of these 300 page threads... lol!!
February 23, 2009 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
You were lucky to arrive here after most of the trolls left. So if you read down some of those threads you will see endless arguments in places, especially when I called for "simple Justice." Oh, boy, did the trolls go wild with that one!
February 23, 2009 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah what happened to all the trolls. There was one little guy when I started, and then he faded away too. Extinct - like the dodos... oh well. Intellectual darwinism perhaps. lol!
February 23, 2009 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obey is not trying to express something over your head or mine. INDIVIDUAL NEEDS VS. NEEDS OF SOCIETY.
For heavens sakes TheraP, you have probably read 100 books that touch on that. Your whole Zen thing.
I had slobbered on somebody's blog yesterday about verbiage. Cover. 1798 or thereabouts, Adams asked for a received the Alien & Sedition Acts. Putting people in prison for speaking out against governmental actions. Taking individual rights away.
Today we call it the Patriot Act.
If I ever see a piece of legislation that says the Freedom Act, I will read every single word and read every liberal's take on it.
Getting back to Obey who is a great deal brighter than me. All, and I mean all, rights listed in the Bill of Rights have to be interpreted. And the courts will inevitably end up using some 'balancing test.' Balancing the individuals rights against the need of the society.
We do not have freedom of speech, unrestrained. We just don't. You know, I just can't stand up in a theater and yell fire unless I have reasonable cause to believe there is a fire.
The idea of Justice as a person holding a scale goes back to Maat, an Egyptian figure usually represented by a feather. If you have equal weight on both sides of the scale, a feather will push one side down. That concept of 'tipping the scales' is four, five thousand years old.
W and his minions were arguing that when the needs of society are increased, individual rights must be ceded to the state. Our war on terrrrrrism must be completed before rights are ceded back and I say f..k you, that war has been going on for four thousand years, and that means we never get our rights back.
The scales of justice. Always weighing, always balancing. A process. And yet it is an end is it not. For Mandella, justice was at least partially met when he was let out of prison after 20 some years. And a little more justice was meted out when his dreams of a more free South Africa were met.
Oh, I am rambling.
February 23, 2009 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Recommended! Yes, Justice for all.
That the VP would suggest it was not necessary for a prisoner to know what charges they were under should be outrageous. When we fail to confront how far down the slippery slope of dictatorship this statement exists, we have lost our sense of justice. Cheney comes from the land of the CEO, where justice is optional. But this is a democracy and justice is required.
February 23, 2009 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, dd. That was really beautiful. Yes, we're always striving for a balance. And Justice is more associated with that than freedom. But by using the word "freedom" the repubs tug everybody into thinking that there is this goal of total freedom. Freedom to go bankrupt if you're sick and need healthcare. Freedom to starve on the street if you've gone bankrupt. Freedom to pave your own highway and make your own vehicle to drive on it and refine your own gasoline after you build your own well for oil and so on....
It's like a big comedy - if the nation would just wake up and see the truth the repubs are peddling!
February 23, 2009 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks DD. I'm still running through your old threads. But that one helps a lot! much catching up to do...
February 23, 2009 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
DD, and Thera too because it's her post: Does liberty carry more responsibility than freedom does, or is neither responsible by itself without justice? Is the use of the word in the Pledge of Allegiance inspired by the catchy French Liberté?
If the Pledge ended "with freedom and justice for all", and we followed its intent, Justice could seem to have a hard row to hoe. I get an image of vehicles traveling helter skelter in all directions with no traffic lights or Stop signs, just some unlucky consequences for the many.
Maybe I'm nitpicking.
Maybe the use of freedom - as in "they hate us for our freedoms"-by GWB was crafty, deliberate framing. Or maybe growing up in peculiar privilege defined "freedom" in a perverse way for the shrub and shaped his disregard for the common good.
February 23, 2009 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Justice is a virtue. Freedom is like happiness - a state (relative to other states). I'm not sure 'freedom' carries responsibility, no more than happiness does. For that reason, I think Justice is more important, in order to limit freedom so that mine does not restrict yours or the US's freedom does not restrict that of other nations. Again, it's a very slippery topic to discuss.
The Pledge is a strange animal. It was a late addition to our national traditions, written by a baptist minister in 1892. No other nation, to may knowledge has such a pledge. And as such, it does not trace back to the founding fathers or founding documents, other than this minister's perusal of those documents when developing his "pledge to the flag."
Stop and think that even when this nation began, with words saying "with liberty and justice to all," we were a nation of slave-holders and we were systematically pushing native americans out of their lands. Only white men participated in voting or could hold office.
Another of the things I'm mulling over these days is to what extent a nation, founded upon certain principles, which it ignored from the beginning as "universal principles" (i.e that we are endowed by the creator with "rights" such as "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness") - so, to what extent hypocrisy in the founding of our nation has left us with an indelible and still yawning rift - and whether that can truly be bridged or healed. That's where I'm going with this.
February 23, 2009 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe the use of freedom - as in "they hate us for our freedoms"-by GWB was crafty, deliberate framing. Or maybe growing up in peculiar privilege defined "freedom" in a perverse way for the shrub and shaped his disregard for the common good.
GWB was never crafty or deliberate because he never had the brains for it. His 'team' including Rove were and that they never wrote anything or said anything that was not crafty that was not deliberate and that was not framing.
And they all totally disregarded the 'common good'.
For w, freedom was getting out of a couple dui charges, or getting out of 2 years or so of National Guard Service after getting in for the purpose of getting out of having his ass shot off in Vietnam.
This would take more research on my part. But is it not interesting that Liberty might be anthropomorphised sp into a woman like Justice is? What is it, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.
I think Liberty is Freedom. It is not justice because justice demands the weighing.
That is why I am so taken by Oleeb and Zipper today. If you wish to know how I feel, read them.
February 23, 2009 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
And the Statue of Liberty was given to us by France. So your quotation of their "liberte, egalite, fraternite" (wish I knew how to do those little accent marks!) fits perfectly! It was their statue!
February 23, 2009 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I define justice on a societal level as the balance between liberty and equality. So yes, I do see justice as what we should be striving for as a nation, because to err too far in the direction of liberty or equality is to invite criminal exploitation (liberty) or a panopticon prison (equality). I believe that the neoconservatives define freedom as "the ability to do what we want up to and including reshaping the world into a perpetual American military/industrial hegemony." So when Bush said that they hated us for our freedoms, then he was right if you use that definition.
That is the problem in general: language. We have these words, like freedom and justice, which mean a multitude of things and must be adapted to both unique situations and universals. This leaves language open to exploitation. Specifically, it lets politicians define a word for themselves without telling the public at large. The public will hear the bromides and interpret them through their cultural filter. Bush says "freedom," and we think "bill of rights, waving flag, smiling babies, baseball, etc." when what he means is "trade routes, war profits, resource control, shock and awe, etc." It is this cognitive dissonance that allows this nation to commit untold horrors in exchange for Happy Meals. I mean, what kind of justice exists when my flat screen TV is made by Chinese prison labor? Or if the gas in my car comes from land being occupied by armed forces in contravention to international law? Or if our retirement investments are underwriting a criminal deriviative ponzi scheme? In all these situations, there is freedom of action, but the consequences are perilous to the fate of humanity.
We have to hold ourselves accountable for our language, especially our trite cliches that invite unconscious orthodoxy.
February 23, 2009 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a stunning comment! Thank you from the bottom of my heart, Zipperupus!
February 23, 2009 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Zipper, you see I read blogs just for this:
"It is this cognitive dissonance that allows this nation to commit untold horrors in exchange for Happy Meals"
So I am early today, but I hereby award you the Dayly award for the line of the day, given to you from all of me. Really really nice line.
February 23, 2009 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
zipperupus, going OT to inquire if you knew that you were highlighted in the 2/6/09 report on Pew Research's Blogs an Outlet for Economic Outrage?
February 23, 2009 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is great Seashell. Just great. One of our best quoted. And who finds the cite?
Jees you are good at that.
February 23, 2009 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
The puppy is known for driving all around the Internets, dd. :-)
Good blog, TheraP. The eyes (and ayes?) are upon us!
February 23, 2009 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
The puppy rawks.
Also.
February 23, 2009 11:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
And seashell, in one stroke you emphasize the importance of what we are doing right here at TPM!
Kudos to Zipperupus. And kudos to TPM! And kudos to the TPM blogging community!
The eyes of Pew (and others ) areupon us! Wow!
February 23, 2009 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow... I'm speechless. Thanks for pointing that out. I have some reading to do.
February 23, 2009 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
congrats!
February 23, 2009 10:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent post as always TheraP! Thank you!
Can there be freedom without justice? No, not really because those that are oppressed are not free. And none of us are really free if anyone remains oppressed. Not just the Bible, but human history teaches this lesson over and over again.
The freedom the powerful tout to the population isnot universal freedom but freedom for themselves which is inextricably linked to their control of property. Because they own vast wealth, their freedom is essentially unlimited. They tempt those with little or nothing with the idea that this freedom must be maintained, not for the wealthy, but for the little people themselves who are dreaming of one day owning property on a scale with the truly wealthy. It is, of course, a cruel joke and a trick, but nonetheless an effective one. This simple enticement is why the lottery is so profitable for the states that run it. It is literally true that you can win the lottery and each person with a ticket/chance is potentially a winner, but the lottery is rigged. The odds of winning the lottery are incredibly remote and so virtually impossible for anyone to win, and we all know this: that for all but the tiny number of lucky winners, it is a total waste of money. But people are wedded to the fantasy that they might be the winner next time. The lottery, as we all know, is rigged. It's a money making scheme. It is not a way for little people to get rich. The idea of winning the lottery propels sales, and such a tiny number of people benefit it really is a highly deceptive scheme and intentionally so.
So too is our "free" nation rigged in advance to allow only a small number into the priveleged class of wealth and property, but we are constantly reminded that we must maintain this rigged system because "you too, have the opportunity" to become one of the lucky few. It is a cruel joke and an impossible dream for all but a tiny handful of the population. Most did not earn it, but inherited it. It is a strategy for maintaining the status quo and ensuring that those who rule us continue to do so and that their freedom is maintained at all costs: including the lives of our sons and daughters in imperial wars.
Back in the 1900's the IWW had a wonderful song, sung to the tune of the ancient Christian Hymn known as the "Gloria Patri." The Wobbly organizers would sing this song and others, equally satirical and biting, in the mornings as workers entered the gloomy factory gates and in the evenings as they left. Because it is so short I'll put it all out here for folks to sing to themselves if they know the tune:
"Praise boss when morning work bells chime!
Praise him for bits of overtime!
Praise him whose wars we love to fight!
Praise him fat leech and parasite!
Amen!"
Common folk have always been seduced by the Horatio Alger notion of becoming rich themselves and thus, preservation of what the rich have has become paramount under the guise of preserving what the commoners have. The average American is made to feel lucky to have whatever it is he/she does possess by way of property and wealth and to fear the loss of it at the hands of his/her neighbor (especially if that neighbor is "different" in any way). He/she is encouraged to view other people who live and work like themselves as a threat to what little they possess and furthermore to identify not with their neighbors and those whose circumstances are like their own but with the wealthy and powerful whose interests are opposed to their own!
Most Americans don't realize how pathetically little we have and how grotesquely rich the wealthy and powerful really are. Because their view of reality is so terribly skewed, it isn't uncommon for a person who makes say, $100K a year to identify not with his neigbhor who makes a third what he/she makes but has much in common with, but instead with the "Masters of the Universe" bringing down hundreds of millions annually. The $100K person dreams of living like the $100 million dollar people knowing it will never happen, but even more so he/she fears losing what little they themselves have managed to accumulate. This perpetual state of fear and mistrust of those whose interests are the same as ours and the voluntary surrender of our trust to those whose interests are antithetical to our own is the magic of American freedom.
On occasion, the wealthy so abuse their privelege and become go gluttonous that they cause the common people to stir from their slumber and recognize who the real threat to freedom and justice for all happens to be. At those times, we see social and political conflict that may or may not result in a reordering of priorities, power and wealth. The New Deal was such a time that promised freedom for all through economic and political justice and once America started down that path the results were enormous, vastly beneficial to the nation and her people and we then became the envy of the world.
In defense of their interests and in an effort to restore their former stranglehold on freedom, the interests of predatory wealth took up a long march against the New Deal that culminated in the regime of George W. Bush and at the height of their power, as is their wont, they lost control of their urges and unleashed an orgy of unrestrained greed and gluttony the likes of which the world has never known. The outcome is the world economy in ruins. This orgy has begun to open the eyes of the people once again and we can only pray that as in the 1930's the people will demand and get a reordering of priorities, wealth, and power for a second New Deal that will put us back on the path of justice which leads toward justice for all. But this time, we must make the reordering permanent and impossible to dismantle.
February 23, 2009 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for this outstanding comment, oleeb. I was thinking of you when I wrote this post. (and you notice I quoted from Jeremiah - and made a particular point of how the prophets over and over called for justice, as you do so eloquently!)
You've added immensely to this thread!
February 23, 2009 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Many thanks TheraP.
February 23, 2009 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oleeb, you sure make me feel better about my first comment. There is not one word in that string of yours that I would disagree with.
Ever.
I am not even jealous that you wrote it. It is so clean and clear. My problem is with those that would disagree. And I have heard them and seen them and I just stare at them in wonder.
February 23, 2009 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you.
February 23, 2009 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to apologize. The ancient Christian hymn tune is "The Doxology" often known as "Praise God From Whom All Blessings Flow" and not Gloria Patri. The words just don't go with the tune of Gloria Patri. Realized the mistake after I was already away from the computer.
February 23, 2009 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
That became quickly clear! But I couldn't recall the name! :)
February 23, 2009 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just underscoring this:
February 23, 2009 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, that should have read:
The dignity of one is connected to the dignity of all. Not just all Americans. But all people. Everywhere!
I usually proofread...
February 23, 2009 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
The great leap of human development will be when enough human beings fully understand and take seriously what you just wrote above. It is no less than the recognition that we are not simply here for ourselves, but for eachother without any distinction between whether we are near or far from eachother.
Naturally, we all understand that as long as humans exist there will be inequalities. Things will never be perfect if people are involved. However, we also understand that it is within our power as human beings to make damn sure, despite all the imperfections will know will arise, that there is a floor below which no human being should be allowed to slip, that people must be treated with dignity and we must all provide for eachother if any of us is to survive, thrive, and to be free to fully express our humanity in the moments we are given.
Our heritage as humans is a long and brutal story of competition and struggle. It is a story of conflict after conflict punctuated on occasions of peace, prosperity and plenty. But competition for resources has historically compelled humans to renew conflicts of various sort out of a sense of fear and need to control resources.
It is time now to leave that behind because we realize that with all we have achieved this no longer need be the case. There does not need to be a priveleged few. There are plenty of resources for every human today to live a joyous, abundant, and productive life if we manage what we have been given by way of natural resources with just a smidgen of responsibility and care. If the sacrifice required is that there are no more Sir Allen Stanford's then so be it. I think we'll make it without them.
We must understand that oppression comes in many forms, it's most brutal and corrosive forms are not naked force but the far more seductive but deadly forms that divide humans, produce voluntary, slef-imposed oppression and deny the fundamental truth that humanity is one irrevocably connected fabric. All of us in existence today are connected to every human who ever lived prior to our births and we are, at this very minute, connected to and impacting the lives of every human being who is to come.
When the moment arrives, and a critical mass of revelation has been reached by the living, that is the day justice and freedom will begin to be seen on earth. This is the result humanity has always striven for, but the fears and small mindedness of our leaders and ourselves have distracted us from what we know in our bones is true, and that is that beyond being here to love and care for one another, we really don't have any idea why we are here.
Greed, which is born of fear and gluttony is antithetical to the idea of caring for one another. If we are ever going to achieve our purpose, even for a brief moment in time, then it must be a conscious and determined effort that brings it about. Every individual has a part to play in reaching this one certain purpose of humanity.
The story of humanity gives us hope for achieving this goal because despite all the conflict and violence, we have established a clear trajectory of progress over time. But this point in time is absolutely a critical turning point in the development of humanity. It may well be the pivotal moment in the history of humanity.
Survival, for the longest time, was the primary struggle but we have mastered the art of survival in earth's environment. The conflict and competition of the past clearly is not necessary. In order to move on to a better phase of humanity we must pass one final, but treacherous test of survival. That test is essentially whether or not we will allow the greed, avarice and megalomania of a small handful of humans who hold the reigns of power and wealth to destroy us and all we have achieved. Our ultimate survival test is whether it is within our capacity that we insist upon respecting and honoring eachother enough not to destroy the planet and ourselves through out of control industrialism or out of control military conflict and ultimately nuclear war.
I believe we can do it, but our leaders will not lead us there voluntarily in America or elsewhere. We common people all over the earth will have to demand that our leaders take us there and if they refuse we shall have to replace them with leaders who get it and are willing to lead in that direction.
This theme brings to mind another song from the early 20th Century, called Bread and Roses. It is a hauntingly beautiful tune born out of a bitter, but successful strike in New England led by the IWW. In this strike, men and women fought for progress together on several fronts against the vicious mill owners who used every possible means to crush the workers efforts at establishing greater equity and humanity in the mills. It was the women of Lawrence who stood out and captured the imagination of workers around the country with their fierce courage and determination as evidenced in this song.
Personally, I think it is beautiful. It brings tears to my eyes when I hear it and even when I read it. Bread and Roses demonstrates, among other things, the idea of our connectedness and how both the past and future are connected to the present. The first time I heard it was before a crowd of several hundred thousand on the elipse in Washington back in 1981. It was sung a capella by several women with marvelous voices that gently pierced the air from the Washington Monument to the White House. To me it is not only beautiful, but a sacred song.
"As we come marching, marching in the beauty of the day,
"A million darkened kitchens, a thousand mill lofts gray,
Are touched with all the radiance that a sudden sun discloses,
For the people hear us singing: "Bread and roses! Bread and roses!"
"As we come marching, marching, we battle too for men,
For they are women's children, and we mother them again.
Our lives shall not be sweated from birth until life closes;
Hearts starve as well as bodies; give us bread, but give us roses!
"As we come marching, marching, unnumbered women dead
Go crying through our singing their ancient cry for bread.
Small art and love and beauty their drudging spirits knew.
Yes, it is bread we fight for -- but we fight for roses, too!
"As we come marching, marching, we bring the greater days.
The rising of the women means the rising of the race.
No more the drudge and idler -- ten that toil where one reposes,
But a sharing of life's glories: Bread and roses! Bread and roses!"
And so, as you read I hope you too can feel our ancestors crying out to connect to us today, teaching us and urging us to do so with eachother and with the future. There is no power greater than that which, as one common humanity, we already possess.
February 23, 2009 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
We are privileged to have you among us, oleeb. Your comments could be speeches!
That was so moving. Especially the song. But really the whole comment.
Blessings upon you. I love how you put eachother together. Very moving.
February 23, 2009 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
you tube of this song:
http://www.holtlaborlibrary.org/Lawrence.html
February 23, 2009 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I couldn't get to it, but the suggestion of youtube took me there and I found an old Joan Baez version.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbtHlxGK5fA&feature=related
February 23, 2009 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19bzfhs_flU
February 23, 2009 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good version and great photographs!
February 23, 2009 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sandburg said, in 1916.
I dunno Oleeb. We haven't managed to remember yet.
February 23, 2009 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, that is what I've told both of my ex-wives and all of my girlfriends,
"No Freedom, no Justice!"
... and you know what? I'm single and free!
hooo! hooo!
:)
February 23, 2009 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gees, I just kept telling em: PLEASE DONT LEAVE ME!
February 23, 2009 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I only cried that in private...
... because the cry I hold dear is a bastardization of the great Freddom Fighter, Wallace;
"They can take our Love, but they will never take our... FREEDOM!"
But I also say, in private, the pain of that freedom is lonely, indeed!
February 23, 2009 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
See TheraP. What did I tell ya. Oleeb, Zipper and Obey, and you have a discussion that will go on 24 hours. This is a great topic. And all these good minds.
February 23, 2009 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is freedom possible without justice?
I would say sure, but is it worth it?
In my view, freedom is what allows us to define our selves, to establish ourselves as sentient independent beings, but pure freedom is a very scary thing. Once you remove all the bonds that tie you, you remove that which matters.
Justice tempers freedom, it establishes the balance between the loneliness of the absolute ideal and the anonymity of the crowd. Through justice comes empathy of the other, and with it the companionship and mutual respect we all need to thrive.
Thought provoking post and comments.
February 23, 2009 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Saladin, I am with TheraP on this.
Justice tempers freedom
Yes. Well done. Easy, Simple, thoughtful...
February 23, 2009 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Beautiful - especially this:
Exquisitely said.
Now if Larry weighs in, he can move directly from your comment to Kierkegaard or Nietzsche. Quinn too.
Boy, you nailed it!
February 23, 2009 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Meant for Saladin above of course.
February 23, 2009 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm more than willing to toss a bit of Nietzsche into this discussion:
-----------------------[
Wouldst thou go into isolation, my brother? Wouldst thou seek the way unto thyself? Tarry yet a little and hearken unto me.
"He who seeketh may easily get lost himself. All isolation is wrong": so say the herd. And long didst thou belong to the herd.
The voice of the herd will still echo in thee. And when thou sayest, "I have no longer a conscience in common with you," then will it be a plaint and a pain.
Lo, that pain itself did the same conscience produce; and the last gleam of that conscience still gloweth on thine affliction.
But thou wouldst go the way of thine affliction, which is the way unto thyself? Then show me thine authority and thy strength to do so!
Art thou a new strength and a new authority? A first motion? A self- rolling wheel? Canst thou also compel stars to revolve around thee?
Alas! there is so much lusting for loftiness! There are so many convulsions of the ambitions! Show me that thou art not a lusting and ambitious one!
Alas! there are so many great thoughts that do nothing more than the bellows: they inflate, and make emptier than ever.
Free, dost thou call thyself? Thy ruling thought would I hear of, and not that thou hast escaped from a yoke.
Art thou one ENTITLED to escape from a yoke? Many a one hath cast away his final worth when he hath cast away his servitude.
Free from what? What doth that matter to Zarathustra! Clearly, however, shall thine eye show unto me: free FOR WHAT?
Canst thou give unto thyself thy bad and thy good, and set up thy will as a law over thee? Canst thou be judge for thyself, and avenger of thy law?
Terrible is aloneness with the judge and avenger of one's own law. Thus is a star projected into desert space, and into the icy breath of aloneness.
To-day sufferest thou still from the multitude, thou individual; to-day hast thou still thy courage unabated, and thy hopes.
But one day will the solitude weary thee; one day will thy pride yield, and thy courage quail. Thou wilt one day cry: "I am alone!"
One day wilt thou see no longer thy loftiness, and see too closely thy lowliness; thy sublimity itself will frighten thee as a phantom. Thou wilt one day cry: "All is false!"
There are feelings which seek to slay the lonesome one; if they do not succeed, then must they themselves die! But art thou capable of it--to be a murderer?
Hast thou ever known, my brother, the word "disdain"? And the anguish of thy justice in being just to those that disdain thee?
Thou forcest many to think differently about thee; that, charge they heavily to thine account. Thou camest nigh unto them, and yet wentest past: for that they never forgive thee.
Thou goest beyond them: but the higher thou risest, the smaller doth the eye of envy see thee. Most of all, however, is the flying one hated.
"How could ye be just unto me!"--must thou say--"I choose your injustice as my allotted portion."
Injustice and filth cast they at the lonesome one: but, my brother, if thou wouldst be a star, thou must shine for them none the less on that account!
And be on thy guard against the good and just! They would fain crucify those who devise their own virtue--they hate the lonesome ones.
Be on thy guard, also, against holy simplicity! All is unholy to it that is not simple; fain, likewise, would it play with the fire--of the fagot and stake.
And be on thy guard, also, against the assaults of thy love! Too readily doth the recluse reach his hand to any one who meeteth him.
To many a one mayest thou not give thy hand, but only thy paw; and I wish thy paw also to have claws.
But the worst enemy thou canst meet, wilt thou thyself always be; thou waylayest thyself in caverns and forests.
Thou lonesome one, thou goest the way to thyself! And past thyself and thy seven devils leadeth thy way!
A heretic wilt thou be to thyself, and a wizard and a sooth-sayer, and a fool, and a doubter, and a reprobate, and a villain.
Ready must thou be to burn thyself in thine own flame; how couldst thou become new if thou have not first become ashes!
Thou lonesome one, thou goest the way of the creating one: a God wilt thou create for thyself out of thy seven devils!
Thou lonesome one, thou goest the way of the loving one: thou lovest thyself, and on that account despisest thou thyself, as only the loving ones despise.
To create, desireth the loving one, because he despiseth! What knoweth he of love who hath not been obliged to despise just what he loved!
With thy love, go into thine isolation, my brother, and with thy creating; and late only will justice limp after thee.
With my tears, go into thine isolation, my brother. I love him who seeketh to create beyond himself, and thus succumbeth.--
Thus spake Zarathustra.
Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm, and Thomas Common. 1900. Thus spake Zarathustra: a book for all and none. London: William Reeves.
First Part; Zarathustra's Discourses; XVII. The Way of The Creating One; pg 70
]-----------------------
February 23, 2009 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow!
February 23, 2009 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
To which I would only add a suggested principle for any covenant among men of the future:
“I hold this to be the highest task for a bond between two people: that each protects the solitude of the other.” R.M. Rilke
February 24, 2009 12:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Larry, you have just put your finger on the greatest outrage of torture. That someone's solitude is invaded, demeaned, damaged if not destroyed. By other humans. Well, even the destroyers have in some ways destroyed themselves in undoing another.
That is a wonderful quote. I love Rilke. (I had a wonderful professor of German - for some reason this makes me think of him.)
It reminds me of Letters to a Young Poet
February 24, 2009 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Although to claim I am a fan of William Blake would be an outright lie, here's a snippet of his that has seemed to stick with me for a very long time:
February 23, 2009 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another: Wow!
February 23, 2009 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is freedom....not to be confused with free will.... but is freedom as a political concept possible without justice?
Short answer: No.
Because...don't we need to be conscious of justice when we exercise our freedoms? I mean, we can't just decide to make a new religion that includes human sacrifice, then hide behind the 'freedom of religion' spiel and believe we will be exculpated from justice when the law comes pounding on the door. No, justice is gonna bite us in the ass if we do that because sacrificing humans is all kinds of wrong.
Gee, TheraP, there are so many definitions of justice. This is hard. I didn't know there was gonna be a test today. I would've studied. Okay, I wouldn't have studied, but I would have at least looked the words up in the dictionary. Okay, I wouldn't have done that either. I'm done.
February 23, 2009 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a genuine and wonderful answer! You get an A!
February 23, 2009 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm beginning to understand why Billy Glad left. But this was super-duper wonderful and I am so impressed with everyone's brilliance, especially how they stroke each other's egos over and over again. I won't say more, because I don't want to insult all my friends here, but really guys; you can do better.
February 23, 2009 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jan, please feel free to elaborate on your concerns and how you would like to see people implement them. Many who've posted above, including myself actually, are unfamiliar with what you refer to about Bill Glad leaving. And it might be helpful if you'd provide some context and some suggestions.
For the benefit of new people, Jan (CVille Dem) has been a longtime (and respected) blogger here.
You can certainly put up a blog on this if you prefer, but it's fine with me if you express your concerns here at greater length.
Thanks.
February 23, 2009 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thera, I need to sleep on this, but let me say first of all that I appreciate your empathetic response to my comment. I have been here for about 5 years, and so I do have some history. Billy Glad and I have argued over time -- his contention was that TPM was just an echo chamber. I disagreed strongly with his comments, which I considered pouty and negative.
I find myself recently, and especially after going through this thread, wondering what the conversation has been about. Go back and check the posts; it is like a Mutual Admiration Society rather than an exchange of ideas.
I don't agree with Billy that you have to disagree with everyone to make the discussion valid, but it strikes me that much of this is all about the brilliance of the commenter rather than a response to what was said.
Like I said, I need to sleep on this, and I may be just cranky. I have been here a long time, and I have seen trends come and go, but this tendency towards multiple self-congratulatory threads seems to me to diminish the conversation rather than to move it forward.
I realize this will piss a certain number of people off, and again, I want to recognize and appreciate the way you responded to my comment. You are an adult, and obviously -- a therapist!!!! (and a good one at that!)
February 23, 2009 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Glad you wrote back. Please continue the conversation. To be honest, when one puts up a blog, one never knows if people will agree, disagree, where things will go. I value your input. And I appreciate constructive criticism - even if that sounds unduly laudatory.
I also wonder if the recent lack of trolls is simply resulting in a kind of relief reaction. On the other hand, maybe the huge market melt-down is leading to a need to band together for solidarity and comfort.
February 23, 2009 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stroking egos..?! I got an F and was sent off to the library to get an education. LOL!! Thera's a hard taskmistress, when she needs to be. There's stroking when the stroking's deserved, as far as I'm concerned. Kudos all round. These are all great to read... and reread!
February 23, 2009 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
F??? All I did was make a suggestion! :)
February 23, 2009 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
For Jan to judge - this is Thera on me "...And if somebody else can put this together in a more cogent way, that I can agree with, great!"
That's some serious pug-slapdown. (and well deserved it was!)
:0)
February 23, 2009 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was not meant against you! But if I inadvertantly dissed you, then I am sorry you felt dissed (using the language that is so prevalent today!). Or, alternatively, I am heartily sorry for all my sins! Take your pick!
February 23, 2009 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
No. You were quite right. and I wouldn't want it any other way. For the reasons Jan's bringing up (though I don't think his worry is well-founded here).
February 23, 2009 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cville I like you but for the record Obey is ugly.
Not that I have met him, but look at that avatar.
See. And usually I only let women stroke me. I am a sexist in that way of things. I better amend this.
I ONLY let women stroke me!!!
February 23, 2009 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stroke you?! Hah. I've seen what you up to with the ladies when the lights go down on some of those dying threads. And you're calling ME a dog?! (though i'll concede the ugly...)
February 23, 2009 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
hahahahaaah
I knew you would pick this up
February 23, 2009 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
For the record, Obey, Mr. TheraP is a Spaniard and crimes of passion may possibly still be legal there! So, be assured there is no stroking on these threads! Dead or Alive!
February 23, 2009 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Thera - sorry about the ruckus yesterday. afraid I didn't have time/brain to contribute much on the serious matters. But this thread and the older ones made for some incredibly edifying reading. Thanks again.
must be off...
PS- my lips are sealed :0)
February 24, 2009 8:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know, this was not a ruckus - not compared to how it was when I was systematically targeted by a small group (or one posting as a group?) a bit back.
Threads have a life of their own.
This is one where there have been so many fruitful comments, that I would go back and hedge a lot of what I said yesterday, taking into account the insights of others.
February 24, 2009 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obey is cute and so are you! And I appreciate that you are still my pal. (That pug in the chair makes me realize he is not peeing on somebody's rug)
February 23, 2009 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a life-size chair, my friend, so don't mess with me and my water-retention problems!!
lol!
February 23, 2009 8:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy Glad could have stuck around. You can stick around too. You and I have had disagreements. And in this environment there is nothing wring with attaboys or dittoes. This is a complicated subject that has been discussed throughout human history, from Hammurabi to George W. Bush.
I note that you did not say anything about the thread or about anything specifically written in response. Instead, you came in here and shit in the center of the room like a jealous puppy. So, how about you backtrack and actually add something to the conversation?
February 23, 2009 8:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I shit in the center of the room like a jealous puppy?
I "can stick around?"
I have been here for years longer than you, and I have been contributing to the discussion for a long time. I know how easy it is to react to what is perceived as a negative, and also how easy it is to lash out, but it doesn't always carry the conversation forward any more than a lack of constuctive criticism does.
A suggestion: Take a look at TheraP's response; she wanted to understand what was going on -- I am not some troll that parachuted in to TPM last week to drive everyone crazy. We all need to pay attention to each others concerns, and if you re-read what I wrote, that is pretty much my point from the get-go.
February 23, 2009 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is the central problem: the assumption is that if you aren't part of the swarm of locusts that moves as a group, you must be a troll.
Now you are beginning to see what it's been like for others here.
February 23, 2009 10:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, just rude people.
February 23, 2009 11:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are one of the most obnoxious posters here. You come off as smug and arrogant and when met with any resistance you pull out the "old lady" victim card.
So we know it's not about "rude people". It's about length of posting. People here act like TPM is their private treehouse club and others have to pay homage to a small group of old-timers. And try to fit into their Echo Chamber.
You have been angry with me ever since my first post when I pointed out that your over-the-top behavior may have hurt your ward.
You keep invoking that you are a Christian. There's something called the golden rule. That's a good place to start. Then worry about service to others.
February 23, 2009 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
No. You are just rude. If you don't like me calling you on it, quit provoking me.
Would it help if I said I was sorry you are rude? And please link to the times I have "played the old lady card." You seem to think it's been a frequent occurrence, but, clearly, you've mentioned it more than I ever have, and your stalking and sophomoric personalization is becoming tiresome. I have ignored it, but for your sake, I will mention it one last time. I hope you understand that others will point it out, even if I never do. It is tiresome for them as well.
Just sayin'. You might want to knock this childish vendetta off, it adds nothing, and does you no good.
February 24, 2009 12:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Like you were "provoked" by all the people at the Florist's office? You realized I had a point after my first post and then you got even angrier at me because you couldn't handle the truth.
Obviously you stopped with the "old lady" victim card... because it looked silly once I called you on it.
And lets not forget witty posts like "Trucknutz. Also." we know what the general level of the swarm is.
You have anger management issues, Bwakfat. Everything here "provokes" you. And then you call posts from quinn "BS" and "propaganda".
You are angry at not having as much as you think you are due. Every one of your posts can be summarized that way. It's as simple as that.
February 24, 2009 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, as a member of the human race I was provoked by those treated others as less than human. Why weren't you?
You didn't get it then, and I doubt you ever will. I was hardly the only one that 'splained it to you, a lot of people tried, but you were more interested in putting me down personally than to listening to reason. I see that you still are. What you are doing to me is called stalking and you are in violation of the TOS here. Keep it up, I can point to blogs that I didn't even comment in where you were trashing me by name for some made up grievances. It's pathetic and creepy.
What is obvious to everyone is that you have a vendetta, and THAT reflects rather poorly on you.
Get some help.
February 24, 2009 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Believe me, if I were to stalk anyone, I wouldn't start with an "old lady".
You treated people in the florist shop as less than human. It's like you screaming to some secretary at Exxon about the obscene profits made by the oil industry and then wonder why she doesn't do anything about it.
Threatening me with your imagined Terms of Use violation is a violation of my Terms of Use. People talk about other people on these boards all the time. You are a legend in your own mind.
February 24, 2009 9:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Geeez, give it a rest! First of all you accuse Bwack of hiding behind the "old lady" excuse, and now you say she only used the term once because you shot it down. From your very first post you have had nothing but vitriole to offer, and you particularly like to jump on Bwack for some reason.
You complain that everyone is wrong except you, and then you accuse others of a "victim complex."
You can keep it up; it is your priviledge, but I don't imagine it is a very appealing way to participate.
Some examples:
I could look up more but I don't feel like bothering. Like I said after your first bunch of toxic posts: I'm sure people scatter pretty quickly when they see you coming. I guess it is because they all have bad taste, eh?
February 24, 2009 9:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, you actually are really really rude. Bwack is right.
February 24, 2009 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
You continue to break your own toys. And then go running around asking others' "fix it?"
February 24, 2009 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Huh?
February 24, 2009 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
This commenter is adept at accusing others of it's own worst transgressions, C'ville.
It will keep coming back with different usernames in an effort to 'even the score' with other commenters it fears and loathes, yet will never be able to. Because the faults it attributes to others are merely it's own obvious failings to everyone but it.
Pity and move on.
February 24, 2009 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
See above, chicken-friend!
February 24, 2009 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
We can do better than Nietzche? Not sure about that.
February 23, 2009 9:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
True. The Nazis admired him endlessly.
Sigh.
February 23, 2009 10:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
More people than the Nazi's have appreciated Nietzche. They probably liked chocolate too. Should we all hate chocolate? Lighten up.
February 23, 2009 10:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Chocolate didn't provide the central philosophical template for the notion of the Super-race.
February 23, 2009 10:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Give me a break. So, if Nietzche didn't exist we would have been spared Nazism? They were also inspired by ancient fairy tales the Gods of the north. Shall we never speak of Odin or Thor? Will reading Nietzche make you a Nazi? Please, get over yourself and chillax. You're taking it too far. If you don't like him okay! I certainly don't agree with everything Nietzche had to say, but last I looked he was a fairly important figure in the intellectual life of the western world not primarily known as an inspiration for the Nazis.
February 23, 2009 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oleeb, you're leaving out all the good parts - his sister and her husband, the revisions to Wille, his relationship to the nationalists in general, etc. It's worth the telling, because ilove doesn't seem familiar with it.
February 23, 2009 11:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are boring. Now I'm going to hand you your ass.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/ben_macintyre/article3634609.ece
I never said he was a Nazi. However, he was a conservative elitist, an aphorist of brilliance championing individual greatness in the midst of mediocrity.
Huzzah! Celebrate!
You've just described William F. Buckley's point of view as well.
February 23, 2009 11:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. and Ben Macintyre is god.
Listen up you stoopid peoples!
February 23, 2009 11:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ho Chi Mihn admired Jefferson and Washington immensely. Paul's Romans 13 has been used for almost 2 millennium now as a Christian foundation for the evil fantasy of "just war":
Should the works of Washington, Jefferson and the Apostle Paul be simply tossed into the waste bin of history, because they have been exploited through misunderstanding as justification for immoral acts? In response to your uninformed and insensate derogation of Nietzsche, which did not flow from you own cerebration, but was instead rote repetition of uninspected echos you heard across a chasm of nonunderstanding, with a snippet from Emma Goldman, realising that this too will probably fall upon deaf ears:
Nietzsche's Übermensch is entirely unrelated to what the Nazis bastardised it into. Übermensch is a human who has transcended the yoke of unthinking existence that affects most of humanity. It is a person who acts not from external constraints, but upon their conscious will. It has nothing to do with wars of empire by Nation States, or antisemitism.
February 24, 2009 3:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well done PCA.
I think each person has to arrive at Nietzsche’s doorstep as a result of their own philosophical quest. One can read the pre-Socratics and marvel at the immergence of analytical reasoning out of the religious cacophony that was the ancient Levant. As Nietzsche would have it, Dionysius wandered from India to the Greek peninsula, his beautiful raiment falling from his body until he stands on the shores of the Aegean as the naked Apollo. But then the Pre-Socratic progress stalls, and the reader is disappointed. A brick layer, Socrates, full of this Greek optimism for the mind and free of the vestments of the clergy, takes up the great questions of human existence. Once again the reader is in awe. The only sadness is that there is not just one more dialogue to read. So one is left to reread and reread the ones we have. What is next, the reader asks? Well there is the metaphorical Plato and the metaphysical Aristotle, each a genius in his own way. But neither has the strength of Socrates and one continues to wish for just one more dialogue.
A millennium passes with its droll obsessions over empire and decay. Eventually the West picks up where the pre-Socratics left off. This time the disputations are large in number, wide in scope and full of subtleties. Engrossing as they are, eventually they too stall. Like a ship that has run ashore, philosophy lies proudly aground, stuck on the rocks of Hume and Kant. Once more the reader is disappointed.
As if in the scene at the watering hole in Lawrence of Arabia, the reader sits and waits. Slowly a figure emerges in the distance. I am not alone, the waiting reader thinks. Indeed you are not. Nietzsche has arrived. It is again time to talk.
February 24, 2009 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Larry, this drifts OT, but may amuse you. My philosophy background is non-standard from the normal University track. My first real introduction into Philosophy came as a two volume gift from a US Army Surgeon in Vietnam, and were textbooks from his early University life that covered Nietzsche and Sartre, using excerpts of their writings and essays about them written by others. The surgeon perversely thought that they would be good for my soul at that time, although hardly chicken soup, and for this I am grateful.
I mostly skimmed shallowly around Nietzsche at that time though. Several years later, in a University Intro to Philosophy course, I first encountered Plato, was extremely under-impressed with his ravening, and vocal about it in class. Positing an Ideal Form, as a permanent externality is more than just fatuous religiosity, it is dangerous thought, which can be leveraged as rationalisation for manifest evil. (In the Ideal Form of America, the government does not torture, but we exist in the Real Form, we facing the circumstances of a post-911 world...) An in class crack that piety to Plato was the successful seduction of young male students, got me an out of class appointment with the Professor, who was genuinely amused with my distaste for Plato, and made a personal syllabus change for just me, during the rest of the Greek weeks in his class, which was loaded up on St. Aquinas. Most of my University Philosophy after that was from a Political Science angle, and again, Plato was whacked. Philosopher Kings - You cannot be serious - Unless of course, I get to be The Philosopher King of The Hill.
Prior to my entry into University studies, I'd already delved personally into some Chinese philosophy: Lao Tzu, Sun Tzu, and fairly deeply into the I Ching. This greatly affected my understanding of Nietzsche's Übermensch, as it seems a somewhat dissonant analog to the I Ching's "Superior Path".
Recently, I had the great fortune to run across a Jefferson letter to Adams, and the reply, in which both men discussed their distaste for Plato. This was a personally pleasurable find. Here's a citation for them, with a Google Books link:
Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, July 5, 1814;
and the reply:
John Adams, letter to thomas Jefferson, July 16, 1814
published in:
The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (ME); Volume XIV, pp 144-161
I used to hear the music of the spheres, but shock-therapy cured me.
February 24, 2009 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you were in Vietnam, you are in your 60s. This explains why you don't get Twitter on the other pages.
I know. You older people have more wisdom. And yet, and yet, someone your wisdom is a relevant for us as your elders were for you.
February 24, 2009 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you incapable of proper reasoning, and lost within an existence filled to the brim with massive fail? No, I've not yet seen my 60th birthday, but it will come soon enough. I was picked-up in the lottery draft. If you're able, you might be able to derive a fairly close guesstimate of my age here.
Your crack about my non-understanding of Twitter provides further evidence that you do not possess basic data retention skills. Whether the cause for this is slovenliness, Acute Logic Deficit Disorder (ALDD), or possibly a combination of the two, I've yet to determine. The conclusion reached in my recent blog post about The GOP's recent discovery of Twitter, wasn't that Twitter possessed no utility, but that its 140 character maximum ceiling on messages, and its constantly streaming lack of permanence made The GOP's assertion that Twitter could lead them out of the minority wilderness pure fantasy. The post was a satirical look at the GOP's web ineptness, and included noting one of the many Republican thefts of intellectual property published on YouTube, as well as pointing out that Pete Hoekstra's position, as the ranking minority member on the House Intelligence Committee, strongly indicated that the Republican Party is afflicted with a pandemic of elected intelligence failures. If you had actually read and comprehended that post, and my subsequent comments, you would have known that I have at least one Twitter account, and had derived a modicum of utility from it.
Maybe your problem understanding all of this is a resultant from your acquisition of knowledge in messages streams comprised of 140 characters or less, and its attendant short-attention-span effect upon your mental faculties.
February 24, 2009 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just re-read the Twitter thread, PCA. If there is someone that doesn't get it, it would be the author of this line:
February 24, 2009 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've been pondering this for several days, Larry. I never sat and waited for Nietzsche. I must have bypassed that somehow. Whatever arrived, arrived internally - can't say if it was created from within or arose from some deep underground river I connected with or whether it was more like that Kierkegaard quote you gave us the other day. For me the spiritual path seems to have sufficed, so long as I kept "climbing" beyond the institutional ladders (as I've described elsewhere).
Not that it matters. But I seem to have skipped over philosophers at a certain point. I really don't know. But I find it interesting.
I do recall a point where I felt unsure of everything except the ground I was standing on. I recall that afternoon well. It was at a reception in the Catskills for the Dalai Lama. It was the briefest of interactions, but it powerfully made clear that Holy Mystery resides within.
Namaste. The Dalai Lama embodies Namaste.
He points to the Holy in You.
February 25, 2009 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let freedom ring!
And justice play out!
February 23, 2009 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
here, here!
February 23, 2009 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Justice to the rescue! :-)
February 23, 2009 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is indeed a thorny issue, and I think that picking "freedom" is particularly acute.
I believe that there has been a deliberate attempt to redefine the concept of freedom. I believe that freedom has been redefined as capitalism - I have choices of what to buy. Further, democracy has been conflated with capitalism. I hear this all the time from my students. Therefore, the neo-conservative (and neo-liberal in a slightly different way) has resulted in "bringing democracy" as "bringing unfettered capitalism." That was very clear in the initial actions taken in Iraq after toppling Hussein.
It has been said that in the U.S. we have a tendency to think of freedom within the context of freedom "to." Whereas, many think of it as freedom "from." In other words freedom to ... go where you want, buy what you want to buy, say what you want to say, watch what you want to watch. Freedom "from" would be such things as freedom from the intrusive power of government, or corporations, or other sources of power within the society.
It is clear that most of those are no longer concerned about the freedom of their privacy, or the freedom of being detained without charges (habeas corpus), or the freedom from illegal search and seizure, or the freedom from being stopped and searched.
Many, perhaps most, in the United States, think that we have freedom to choose what we watch and consume, and ignore who controls what that is - or that our choices are being limited.
"Justice" on the other hand is a thornier issue. Are we talking distributive justice, procedural justice, or "fairness?" In the U.S., distributive justice is often seen as "socialism" or "communism." On the other hand, procedural justice may be more palatable - the laws and procedures are administered in a consistent manner. Of course, that "consistency" may embrace significant inequality.
Is it "just" to give everyone in an organization a 10% raise? Some would say "yes" because everyone is getting the same amount. Others would say "no" because people didn't start in the same place so that the outcome is unequal. In other words, a person making $7/hr gets a .70 raise ($7.70/hr) , but someone making $70/hr gets a $7 raise ($77/hr).
There is a moral relationship between freedom and justice, and there is a point at which total freedom essentially means no justice. If we focus on total individual freedom, then there is no common good, and no consideration of when my freedom harms someone else. Of course, total individual freedom doesn't even take into consideration "the commons."
Oh well, this response has gotten way too long. Sorry about that.
Excellent issue and discussion.
February 23, 2009 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
If I have a million dollars and all my bills are paid. I have a lot of freedom. A lot of these comments touch on materialism and I am a materialist.
I have to go back beating dead horses again though.
You know this, Justice, I know it when I see it. Or Pornography I know it when i like what I see. WHAT!!!
The blow-up again. Taking that photo and just blowing it up until it is just a bunch of dots.
Nothing there has form.
Stand back from the original picture and look at a form.
We have one percent of our entire adult population in prison.
Is there something wrong with that picture?
Over half of those in prison are minorities. Is there something wrong with that picture?
Well, conservatives will bring out charts.
Charts showing that everyone gets a lawyer. That ninety per cent of all convictions are based upon confessions with no trial.
Black people have single parent households.
Black people do not graduate from HS as much
Blah, blah, blah
Speaking of pictures, has anyone seen good solid photo shots of slums in Chicago, Detroit, NYC, L.A.? Anyone see the stats on murders? Demographically? And otherwise?
Conservatives will say, the opportunities are there, individuals must take responsibility.
Stand back from the fucking picture and look at it. SOMETHING IS WRONG. AND THAT SOMETHING HAS GOT TO HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH JUSTICE.
There is something happening here, and you don't know what it is, do you Mr. Jones?
February 23, 2009 10:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
GO dickday!
That was exactly what I was implying with:
There is (and always has been under colonial rule) embedded inequality. For example, "All men are created equal." Clearly that did not mean all humans - we are still working on that.
February 24, 2009 12:16 AM | Reply | Permalink