Hi....
I'm trying to determine when the "Era of the Victim" was foisted on
us, en masse. I cannot remember any of this (crisis intervention
groups, Political Correctness, pansy-assed It's-not-fault;-you're-coffee-was-too-hot type lawsuits, spanking=CHILD ABUSE (?!?!), victim victim victim CRAP before Bush was elected. I think this is a worthwhile research topic for ALL SubGenii; it is the most insidious horror the Con has unleashed, and only by RIPPING TO SHREDS will you insure that SubGenii will not be sucked in
via our children, families, friends, etc.
I welcome all (sigh) responses to this. Maybye as a group we can piece
this together.
Kai
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ljduchez@en.com (Lou Duchez)
Okay, my take on it is, it's the Con trying to make a mockery of
legitimate complaints against the sytem. Typically they take a
real situation and twist it so it sounds absurd.
Let's take the "hot coffee" example. Here's how the story REALLY
goes. The old lady was sitting in a parked car, on the passenger
side, and the coffee spilled on her lap and caused serious burns
that required skin grafts and (I believe) a 13-day hospital stay.
She asked McDonald's to help foot the medical bill -- any food that
can cause that much damage on contact is arguably dangerous -- and
they offered her like only $700 or $800. So she took it to court.
The jury cited contributory negligence on her part -- being in a
car instead of sitting at a table, I suppose -- but also noted that
this isn't the first such case against McDonald's.
Now whether or not you think the jury should have awarded as much
money as they did, the case still takes on a completely different
bent when one sees the facts as they are, not as the media loves
to present them. She was not driving as she was drinking, as George
Will et al are fond of saying (and let's face it: they *have* to
know better). She was not suing over a minor inconvenience and a
dry-cleaning bill, as they love to imply. She *was* arguably a
victim here, and not the first victim of this kind either.
Consider another celebrated media suit, where a lady sued a tricycle
company because the tricycle she got her son was the wrong color.
Here's what REALLY happened. The tricycle had a basket in front
with some wires that jut out, but were hard to see because of the
color they were painted. So when the tricycle spills and one of
these wires goes into the kid's head and causes brain damage, the
mother sues the company for producing a product that can disable a
kid through more-or-less normal use. The issue was product safety,
the color of the paint only contributed to the parents not foreseeing
the problem, and yet the media sells it as yet another frivolous suit.
To say nothing of all the times the Con makes "due process" sound
like a farce designed to protect the guilty!
Remember, we are trusting the Con to tell us that this is "The Era
of the Victim". It's in their vested interests to make us believe
that there are no victims, only deserving recipients of abuse.
Most people are all too willing to believe that anyway ... because
the alternative would be to admit that the Con is unfair, and
that would be just too big a thing to deal with, now wouldn't it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: dynasor@infi.net (Dennis McClain-Furmanski)
I think I know not only when, but who. The when started with the first bad
trip hotlines in the 60's. These became generalized save-my-poor-ass
crisis hotlines. Virtually all of these are run under the guidlines set
forth by the guy from Purdue University that wrote them and pushed for them to be accepted all over the US. This is the same guy that wrote the crisis response workers debriefing program, so response team members don't get PTSD problems after a large crisis.
Once it became socially accepted, and even supported, to have someone
there to bail you out of your problems, even the previously well
intentioned programs such as the "war on poverty" got twisted into
something that prevents individual maturity.
Of course, not being able to provide for your own needs in time of crisis
makes one more susceptable. If you can't feed yourself without social
support, you're living off the cumulative psychoses and you end up eating
the crazy with your cookies.
* 2qwk! 1.26b3 * I think that I think, therefore I think that I am.
--
dynasor@infi.net The Doctor is on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: wbarwell@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William Barwell)
Kai Cherry <kai@upx.net> wrote:
>I'm trying to determine when the "Era of the Victim" was foisted on
>us, en masse.
When the Republicans adopted the Politics of Resentment scheme of Kevin
Phillips to get Nixon elected.
Have you ever heard a bunch of more loudmouthed self proclaimed 'victims'
ever, except maybe the fundamentalist Christians. (But there is very
heavy overlap here.)
Problem is that if you are a 'victim' you can't have competeing 'victims'
because you have to treat them as yourself, which is not what the
bellowing about being avictimized by 'them' is all about as far as teh
Republicans are concerned. (Now encapsulated by teh phrase, angy white
male.)
So the 'victimization' nonsense and rhetoric was created to put down
real victims, (second class citizenhood of women and blacks for instance),
by blathering white males slightly politically right of Genghis Khan.
Here's the main outline.
Fill in the details yourself.
Start with Kevin Phillip's comments in various post 1992 election news
stories explaining the politics of resentment and how it broke down into
the naked racism of David Duke and Wilie Horton.
Victimzation is a sneer aimed at real victims addressing real problems by
hysterical 'angry white males' trying to retain grip on power they refuse to
adequately use to help real victims.
Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope Of Houston
Slack!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Timothy Verry <verryta@taft.law.uc.edu>
On 27 Oct 1995, Not Rob wrote:
>Hey, you hurt my feelings...
>Just because I'm stupid and incompetent doesn't mean
>That I can't cash in on the "Instant Lottery" of our
>So-called justice system.
Actually, it is all directly traceable to Alcoholics anonymous. THis is
religious "cure" for alcholism that was formulated by lay-people who were
all splintering off of a fundamentalist christian organization called the
Oxford Group in the 1930's. It is based on surrendering your will to a
group of people and a god of your choosing (if you are already good at
rejecting the prosyletizing of christians which are everywhere). The
method is supposed to make you very dependent on god and "the program".
You are never allowed to leave, because you are marked for life, your
only hope outside of aa is "jail, insanity or death."
The problem is, this program which was fairly successful with middle aged
white males (who had severely abused alcohol) in the earlier part of this
century became a booming business once the "disease" concept was used, by
analogy, to every concievable malady, spiritual, physical, mental, or
otherwise and applied to people from all walks of life. INsurance
started paying for "treatment" ($1000/day+ for inpatient). It has
infiltrated mainstream culture, and now everyone just wants to "surrender"
their disease to some parental-god who will make everything better. Many
people (on a psychological level) get the government, god, and their
parents all confused together. You can't blaim these mindless pinks for
this attitude though, they just want mommy to make the bad kids go away
and as the previous poster pointed out, JURIES are awarding huge amounts
of cash, might as well go for it.
Tim Verry verryta@mentos.com | "There's a world going on underground"
2L at University of Cincinnati | --Tom Waits
$$??$$??$$??$$??$$??$$??$$??$$??$$??$$??$$??$$??$$??$$??$$??$$??$$??
"It shall be a world without Slack, except that thou follow my profits".
"Prophecy of the Subgenius, the Prescriptures - the Economicon of Dobbs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ljduchez@en.com (Lou Duchez)
Bob (Not Rob) (Rob (Not Bob)) wrote:
> ljduchez@en.com says...
> > Coffee is likewise expected to
> >function as a consumable substance, not a tissue-destructive agent.
> Sure. Right. Like:
> 1) Jalapeno pepper juice in one's eyes
> 2) Grease from frying pan spattered on one's hands
[lots of examples deleted]
The difference is: jalapeno pepper juice is not *supposed* to be applied
to the eye, grease is not *supposed* to be applied to tissue, and so
on. As I said before, *any* food can be dangerous if you get creative
with it. The difference is that coffee is supposed to touch tissue and
not destroy several layers down after only a second or two of contact.
> *All* hot foods (above about 140 degrees F) can potentially cause
> tissue damage, when used inappropriately.
Had the coffee been used "appropriately", i.e. consumed, it would have
caused even more serious damage. So your point was ... ? ("Oh, she
should have let it cool off first." Well, as I recall that was why she
was opening the lid, yes?)
> THE whole idea behind becoming an
> adult is to GROW enough judgment to handle hot foods safely AND to take
> one's KARMIC LUMPS when one's own stupidity causes one to come to
> harm ("I had no idea that gravity would make me fall off the roof; I'd
> better sue the home builder for not including GUARD RAILS around my
> rain gutters!").
Okay, assuming the roof example is as it's described, that's one thing.
But please explain to me how just a couple seconds' contact with a
beverage should completely destroy skin tissue. That doesn't strike you
as at all odd? The lady didn't just get third-degree burns; we're not
talking a rash that goes away in a week. We're talking skin grafts to
repair the damage. And she wasn't the first person to be seriously
burned this way. If only one person had been thusly injured, I'd see it
as possibly a freak thing ... no fault on anyone's part, except the
lady's for working the lid on the dashboard. But when it happens
repeatedly and the company does nothing about it, you don't sense that
maybe the company should look into a potential hazard to be minimized?
Yes, it's food. Yes, it's hot. But I have to wonder about how well
you'd take the "karmic lumps" if it happened to you. "Gosh, that's
what I get for being clumsy"? Mere clumsiness with food gets you a
dry cleaner's bill; if you instead get 13 days in the hospital, there
just might be something else going on.
Seeing as you equate spilling coffee with falling off a roof in terms of
stupidity-to-harm ratio, I assume you have some tips for how people can
minimize the dangers of eating. Myself, I always figured that food
should be more or less safe to touch, but apparently you disagree;
what precautions would you recommend? And don't just say "don't spill
anything"; that's no more of a precaution than telling roofers, "don't
fall off the ladder". I mean something useful, analogous to having
someone else hold the ladder. Would you recommend insulated garments,
for example?
In any event, let's get back to my original point in clarifying the
McDonald's example: whether or not you think the old lady had a case
(I think she did), the media twisted and distorted and outright lied
to make it sound 100% absurd. Myself, I'm not convinced that this is
"The Era of the Victim", so much as "The Era of the Media Making
Scapegoats out of Victims".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The vice of our country is that we are always outraged at the wrong things."
-- Norman Mailer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: kai@upx.net (Kai Cherry)
Ok, Rob...but I guess what I getting at is HOW IN THE HELL CAN THIS
CONTINUE? It is *so* obvious now. I mean, they are now trying to make
'victims' out of Conservative White Males with lots of money! And even
*they* are falling for it! We know *lawyers* are either scum and/or
ca$h zombies (look at the legal crew of The Church of DollarSignentology) but even they are now victims!! When did true Social Darwinism get throw out the window for this so-called "Kinder, Gentler" human potential brain-drain version? There must be a way to start putting a dent in this shit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ljduchez@en.com (Lou Duchez)
TheCharlie (thecharlie@aol.com) wrote:
: But really, I don't believe in putting anything between my legs that i
: don't trust.
Guess what: the lady was NOT holding the cup between her legs. Nor was
she driving, nor speeding, nor any of the other ridiculifying spins that
the media is putting on this case. She was in a stopped vehicle, on the
passenger's side, opening the cup on the dashboard. The coffee spilled
as she was trying to open it (perhaps to let it vent? I need to check my
source) and that's when it spilled. (Honestly, I had the hardest time
figuring out why you were talking about keeping liquids between her legs
until I remembered that was one of the many urban legends that has sprung
up around this case.)
This is the point I was trying to make from the word "go": "The Age of
the Victim" is largely based on misinformation spread by our corporate
media. Lawsuits against corporations are down, I don't think more than a
dozen suits in the last decade have netted the plaintiffs more than
$500,000, but the media nonetheless lies to us about these things on a
regular basis and we don't have much way to be sure when they're trolling
us. And as I said, my point isn't to demonstrate that the lady clearly
100% deserved to make a big boodle of money, only to show that the facts
of the case are very much at odds with the urban legend of her driving,
holding it between her legs with no lid, etc.
Incidentally, the jury did cite contributory negligence on her part and
reduced the payment accordingly. No doubt they concluded that a
dashboard isn't the best place to be dealing with scaldingly hot
liquids. So I'm not convinced that the "skeevy lawyers" ran the case and
completely duped the jury, as I think Herr Lurch believes.
And since I'm sure you were wondering: my source for this is the media
watchdog organization FAIR, the same bunch that has made the public (at
least somewhat) aware of Limbaugh's habit of lying. Now FAIR could be
lying too, but since they are a small organization that depends on the
good faith of readers for funding and not on corporate advertising
dollars, I am inclined to think that they try to report the facts
accurately. Hey, for all I know it's all a troll ...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mbeaudoin@fdant.nctr.fda.gov (future Monsignor)
ljduchez@en.com (Lou Duchez) writes:
>until I remembered that was one of the many urban legends that has >sprung up around this case.)
Talking about urban legends, I actually have met the woman that was fired
for XEROXing her behind on the company copier. She really gets around. It
seems every job I get, no matter what state I was in, she's been fired from
there.
Her name is Kathy and I believe she works in St. Louis now. I was told she
was recently fired for scanning her behind on the company computer but this may just be an urban legend.
*
I've been waiting a long time for
someone like you to record this moment - Shanti
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: 9775tpowe@umbsky.cc.umb.edu (spy in the house of madness)
kaz@upx.net (KAZ Vorpal) writes:
>
> Even as you said it, it sounds worse than absurd.
KAZ! So nice of you to join us.
>
> What it boils down to is that a bunch of stupid socialist
>assholes assume that if someone asks McDonald's for money, they should
>get it if any excuse might apply...
Socialist? The plantiff and the judge were conservative Republicans.
Yes, you read it right.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Timothy Verry <verryta@taft.law.uc.edu>
On 30 Oct 1995, TheCharlie wrote:
> ljduchez@en.com (Lou Duchez)writes:
>
> Mr. lurch:
> >> Why didn't she ask for cold coffee?
> >
> >So now you seem to be implying that the coffee *WAS* a hazardous
> substance and the lady should have insisted on a less hazardous product.
> Do I detect a shift in your argument?
>
> I don't think he inplied this by the question he posed. I DO , however,
> think that Mcdonalds has been serving coffee too hot for too long. I'm 36
> now and I wrote what i thought was a humorous paper on the ridiculous
> temperature of their coffee when I was a sophmore in high school.
> Something along the lines of ordering your coffee 2 days in advance so it
> could cool down and then leaving a forewarding address to send the food to
> since the service had gotten so bad..
The rumors around the law school (we have access to ALL legal info, pretty
much) was that McDs had settled *500* or so hot coffe burn cases over the
years. I don't know how many of you have had experience in the legal
system, but the unsophisticated get SCREWED. Corps like McDs have very
good representatives (who may happen to have law degrees) whose job it is
to PAY INJURED PEOPLE AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE. The jury probably had
*something* to get them so pissed off, eh?
I was once in a car accident, and we couldn't even get the hospital bills
payed by the insurance. The second I got a lawyer, I had a big fat check
in my hand.
No answers, only more questions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: sylvia@monitor.net
kai@upx.net (Kai Cherry) wrote:
> But what about things besides hot coffee and ladders? What about, say,
> Politcal Correctness and its effect on all of this? Does anyone
> besides me think that this new style of euphimistic speech is
> dangerous? It personally reminds my of IngSoc's 'doublespeak'.
It's divisive. The arguments all become these volleys of "My speak"
versus "Their speak" which is good for the people in power, because nobody
ever gets down and discovers that we're all in this together. Every bit
of email I get from the "righties" uses the same jargon to attack, and
they expect a certain jargon back. When they don't get what they
expect..I never hear from them again. I think this factionalization
contributes more to people's anger and hatred then any frivolous law
suits.
Vast generalizations-r-us,
Sylvia
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: thecharlie@aol.com (TheCharlie)
lurch@mindspring.com (Mr.Lurch) writes:
>Most of the price you pay for an aluminum extension ladder goes to defray
>the manufacturer's insurance costs, for instance. Seems a bunch of so-called
>adults didn't realize that you can fall off a ladder if you are not careful,
>and sued (and collected) when they did. Is this really the kind of court
>system and country you want? Americans sue at a rate something like
>75 times that of European citizens.
I think you hit the nail on the head here. No need to quote the rest of
your post which only backs up this point in spades.
An interesting point.. If you sue in some European countries.. you either
win or you pay EVERYONE'S costs. Seems to me that far too many people are
willing to sue when an attourney will take the case on a contingency..
But take on a case where you either win or lose your house... funny, all
bets are off. But the people who lose are those with legitimate cases but
the plaintiff has no money to hire a lawyer.
Where are all the altruistic lawyers then?
Nobody asked, just my opinion
Charlie
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: thecharlie@aol.com (TheCharlie)
ljduchez@en.com (Lou Duchez) writes:
>Granted, food is often served too hot to be comfortably consumed
>immediately. But hot enough to destroy skin all the way down? And this is
>a matter of spilling a liquid, not immersing one's hand in a coffee pot: if the
>coffee was hot enough to cause that much damage in the first second or
>two of contact, that's not a product fit to be consumed.
I dunno Lou, I rarely put the food I buy into my crotch to see if it's fit
to eat.
Wel, Okay, I do, but not often.
Well, OK... often, but not always.
oh, shit, OK, always, .. but not always to check the temperature.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: kaz@upx.net (KAZ Vorpal)
Lou Duchez (ljduchez@en.com) wrote:
>)Sure, there is pointless litigation afoot. I believe it. But I'm more
>)worried about the many who CAN'T fight City Hall than the few who >)manage to steal the mayor's wallet.
>)See, this is my overwhelming take on all this: it's in the Con's best
>)interests to make everyone think that there are no undeserving victims.
>)Then people believe that, to thrive, all they need to do is fly straight
>)and do what the Con says, and then they won't have anything bad happen
>)to them, right? I will agree that there are plain old accidents sometimes
>)where no one is at fault, and I will agree that there are cases where
>)the victim is at fault. But there are cases where City Hall or Big
>)Business or whoever is at fault ... and unfortunately, the Con does its
>)damndest to make the victims look like plain old whiners.
You are exactly the problem.
See, the "little guy" is not the one who needs protection.
Nobody tries to soak the little guy for big money in needless lawsuits.
It's "Big Business" and anyone else successful who gets raped.
And it happens -constantly-. Not "I'm there is pointless litigation
afoot", but instead "The most common type of lawsuit is one motivated
simply by greed on the part of the accuser".
And it's because, as usual, of the "little guys need special
advantages" types like you that this has become so common.
>)> >So now you seem to be implying that the coffee *WAS* a hazardous
>)> >substance and the lady should have insisted on a less hazardous
>)> >product. Do I detect a shift in your argument?
>)> No. Sure it was hazardous. So is gasoline, battery acid, acetone, bleach, and
>)> a million other things.
>)Except that gasoline is expected to operate as a fuel, battery acid as
>)a key part of battery function, etc. Coffee is likewise expected to
>)function as a consumable substance, not a tissue-destructive agent.
Coffee is expected to be hot. You can get third degree burns from
pizza cheese, too. Being -temporarily- too hot to consume does not
constitute a failure on the part of the producer.
And, as you keep ignoring, the FINAL point is that the company
never SAID it could not burn you.
As they sell it as "coffee", there could at least be an implied
contract that it is indeed what people think of as coffee. But they do
not promise that it is not hot. Not to -any- degree.
This is one of the big problems socialists cause. They demand
that people not only not be held responsible for their own actions, but
also that when those irresponsible actions cost, that someone other than
the responsible party pay.
When YOU buy something, you are the SOLE person responsible for
determining what you buy, aside from an obligation on the part of the
seller not to commit FRAUD.
If McDonald's told people their coffee cannot burn you, then they
would be defrauding you and liable for any damages.
If they do not, then it is up to YOU, as the prospective buyer,
to find out and act accordingly.
It is that simple.
>)> And you can't get a rare steak anymore because of the food poising
>)> >lawsuits.
>)Yeah, DARN those meanies who object to having taken ill because their
>)food was improperly prepared ... I mean, food should be more than a
>)means of nutrition, it should be a game of Russian Roulette, yes?
Food should be whatever YOU choose to buy. If you do not want
your food hot enough to burn you...and most consumers of coffee -do- want
it that hot...then YOU are responsible for finding someone who will sell
it to you that way.
--
Secrets of the Sentient
Did You Know:
Glen Roberts, a publisher of books, magazines and newsletters oriented toward privacy and surveillance, says that the FBI has become involved with the casual monitoring of many BBS systems.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: kaz@upx.net (KAZ Vorpal)
Mr. Lurch (lurch@mindspring.com) wrote:
>)In my mind, this so-called "victim" society is a predictable outgrowth of
>)Americans' having too much for too long, and unrealistic
>)expectations about "quality of life." It is a easily observed human tendency
>)to desire and try to attain more than we need, and this was probably the >)case even before we discovered fire. After we did, no one was satisfied to >)have heat and light in their caves, enough to eat, and an unspoiled natural
>)paradise to live in, so we sought to make our environment ever more
>)comfortable, but (as always) there was a price.
The reality is exactly the opposite of what you imply.
Americans(US Citizens) do not have -enough-.
The problem is that they have been taught by the socialist
establishment that the way to get more is to make other people give it to
them. They have learned the greed, hate, and envy of socialist politics.
They no longer understand that you -earn- wealth yourself.
As Phil Gramm said recently, paraphrased:
When passing the finest mansion in town, his family being extremely poor,
his mother would say "If you work hard, you can have a house like that..."
But a socialist like Clinton would say "Someone should make the owner of
that house share what they have with us..."
That is the difference. That is the problem.
>)Americans are perhaps the quintessential examples of what a few hundred
>)thousand years of a quest for a higher standard of living produces.
>)Obsessed with money and material things, having no real understanding of
>)the fact that the reasonably catastrophe-free existence we have enjoyed >)for the past fifty years or so is an anomaly, we take what we have for >)granted, and, predictably, demand ever more. We are egged on by the >)media, because it is anxious to atttract advertisers and sell papers, and is >)more than happy to try and convince us that we need a different appliance >)for every single activity in the kitchen. Members of the legal system and >)the government have expanded their influence and power, generally under >)the guise of "protecting the public," but in reality, they have done it for >)selfish and predictable reasons.
The prosperity and stability, what of it there is, that we have
now is the last resonation of the economic freedom of choice we had in
the US for the last two hundred years.
There is nothing wrong with the demand for more, except that
-socialism- cannot deliver it, and thus socialists try to decry it. The
demand for more -produces- more. Marx claimed we had all we needed one
hundred fifty years ago...yet anyone using the Internet, or taking
aspirin for gods' sake, knows that is false. It is also false when a
socialist says it today.
>)Throughout history, many powerful and seemingly invulnurable empires
>)have collapsed because of decadence and corruption, and a general >)inability to separate what is valuable from what is not. There are many >)examples that predate even the Roman Empire's collapse. We are on the >)same track they took, and have now gone so far that a non-cataclysmic >)solution to our problems is unlikely.
And we are on the path for the same reason: The government
becomes too powerful and too bureaucratic.
>)The bottom line is: Americans should take a long hard look at themselves,
>)and what they demand for themselves, then look at the way much of the >)rest of the world lives. There are a lot of women in Bosnia that wish the >)worst thing they had to deal with were sexist jokes around the water >)cooler, and a bunch of laborers in South America that would kill for a wage >)that would provide them with basic neccessities, let alone the luxuries >)Americans seem to regard as their birthright. Lacking a global perspective, >)many Americans see no reason not to continue to abuse the system for >)personal gain, and they cannot avail themselves of handouts or public >)sympathy unless they can (legally as well as philosophically) define >)themselves as "victims."
We should indeed look at the way the rest of the world lives.
Because ECONOMIC FREEDOM is the sole reason we're so different.
They are not poor because we have so much. We -produce- more of
what the rest of the world consumes than any other country. They are poor
solely because THEY do not have capitalism, they have socialism.
And they will stay poor as long as this is true.
Making us socialist(including Liberalism and "mixed economy")
will not bring them up AT ALL, it will only drag us down to their level
while making them suffer WORSE, since they benefit peripherally from the
fact that economic freedom exists SOMEWHERE in the world.
>)Alexander Tytler said that no democracy could survive forever, because
>)people would eventually "vote themselves largesse." He said the politicians >)would go along for the ride, and for the sake of votes, withhold the truth >)about the dire consequences of the "loose fiscal policy" that would result >)from the pervasive human tendency to try and prosper at another's >)expense.
This is what the Liberals have done for at least sixty years.
This is what the "moderate" Republicans are trying to do today.
The solution is to LOSE fiscal policy. Return the freedom of
economics to the PEOPLE, who can always decide better than any government or central planning committee.
--
Words of the Sentient?
Yes, there will be sex after death;
we just won't be able to feel it.
-- Lily Tomlin
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: lurch@mindspring.com (Mr. Lurch)
>kaz@upx.net (KAZ Vorpal) writes:
>> The problem is that they have been taught by the socialist
>>establishment that the way to get more is to make other people give it to
>>them. They have learned the greed, hate, and envy of socialist politics.
This is a problem, yes, for some people. And I think it should be obvious from my writings that I recognize it exists. But the people behind the creation of this modern "gimme" metality weren't really socialists The were greedy bankers, lawyers, politicians and pundits that found they could benefit by either advocating or functioning within a system of forced, institutionalized altruism. Some of it may have even stemmed from sincere but badly-implemented plans to right real social wrongs, but they went sour, big time. Now we have truly succeeded in making helpless victims of those we tried to aid.
But it sure as hell is not the only social/mental malaise in the collective
American psyche. We have also been taught to value economic growth over
environmental preservation, cheap food production over sustainable
agricultural methods, and to not only tolerate but revel in the fact that we
can produce goods in such huge amounts that each and every one of us is
duty bound to piss them away for the sake of "economic growth." We are
rarely taken to task for the fact that we refuse to develop energy efficient
lifestyles and transportation, and can still find no real alternative to
commuting to work by the one-person-per-two-ton-land barge method.
Americans apparently feel that they should be able to go on using a
disgustingly disproportionate amount of the world's resources forever, and
would ignore the eventual environmental catastrophe that will certainly
result from an ignorance of, or indifference toward, the basically symbiotic
relationship we must have with our ecosystem if either is to survive
indefinitely. Global warming is real. Depletion of the world's fisheries,
deforestation, desertification, topsoil eradication and a host of other
problems can't be wished a away as easily as Limbaugh claims. The
republican notion that all our problems can be solved by "worldwide
economic growth" and catapulting the third world into the same wasteful
Western lifestyle we enjoy is bullshit. Its time to re-evaluate our
responsibilities as Americans and as humans. Past time, really.
>> They no longer understand that you -earn-
>wealth yourself.
To a point, I agree. It is a problem. But there are many other problems.
When I read that Aaron Spelling has demolished one multi-million dollar
mansion and built an 800 gazillion dollar palace on the same site, I
may not question his so-called "right" to do it, but it makes me a little
sick nonetheless. I can't help but wonder what could have so perverted our
American value system that many of us dream of having a huge and useless
dump just like he does, but most don't care if any of our old-growth forests
survive into the next century.
>> The prosperity and stability, what of it there is, that we have
>>now is the last resonation of the economic freedom of choice we had in
>>the US for the last two hundred years.
The capitalists and bankers, left to self-regulation, would pave the entire
planet and encourage people to breed like rats so they would have an ever
expanding market for their goods. Oh, its true that we have lived well, and
historically, many of our accomplishments are impressive, if not laudable.
But our capitalist past includes a lot of ugly warts like third world
exploitation, slavery in a dozen different forms and other behaviors that
led, predictably, to debilitating class warfare. The refusal of the Robber
Barons to make any rational accomodation with those that labored under
them eventually sparked the progressive era, and then the alphabet-soup
mishmosh of giveaway programs that we now are drowning in.
>> There is nothing wrong with the demand for more, except that
>>-socialism- cannot deliver it, and thus socialists try to decry it. The
Here we have a fundamental disagreement. We simply have to use less. Or there has to be a lot less of us. Either we willingly accept the former
alternative, or nature will help us in achieving the latter.
>> And we are on the path for the same reason: The government
>>becomes too powerful and too bureaucratic.
Thats a big part of it. But it should be considered for what it is. Part of a
pervasive tendency to ignore the long-term consequences of actions which
supply a given individual or government with power and short term gain.
>> We should indeed look at the way the rest of the world lives.
>> Because ECONOMIC FREEDOM is the sole reason we're so different.
>> They are not poor because we have so much. We -produce- more of
>>what the rest of the world consumes than any other country. They are poor
>>solely because THEY do not have capitalism, they have socialism.
>> And they will stay poor as long as this is true.
The issue of the third world is much to complex to be addressed in detail
here. Suffice it to say that nothing will improve for them until their
populations are brought under control, and their numbers have so drastically
increased in this century largely because of Western interference. Any system that brought their standards of living up to what we enjoy would
only hasten a now unavoidable environmental catastrophe.
I guess identifying our presnt pickle as a no-win situation is not very
productive, but my rationality (what's left of it) tells me that's exactly
what it is. In general, the people in the third world are just plain screwed,
And so are we. If there was a window of opportunity, it was closed years
ago. If we had a chance to make a plan that would provide for both the needs of the human population and that of the Earth, then, like the 50 pounds of junk mail we toss away every week, it was discarded. Like it or not, we are never any farther from the natural systems tha gave us life than our next breath, let alone our next meal. We can sit here and squabble about our various and equally flawed systems, and the observable causes and effects that eventually force the collapse of all governments, and we will solve and prevent nothing. But if we continue to fuck the planet, the only home we have, we will transform it from the generally benevolent mother than sustains us into a slavering and vicious adversary the likes of which we have no previous experience with.
And I think we will deserve what we get..
Lurch
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: kaz@upx.net (KAZ Vorpal)
Lou Duchez (ljduchez@en.com) wrote:
>)Mr. Lurch (lurch@mindspring.com) wrote:
>): I do. While the term has admittedly become comic cannon fodder as of
>):late, I do think it was ejaculated into the language by the media as part of >):a quite serious effort to prescribe a sort of simplistic and stylishly liberal
>): viewpoint (the one held by nearly all characters on TV sitcoms) as the
>): only morally supportable stance.
>)And (surprise, surprise) I see it differently. The "Politically Correct"
>)viewpoint is an attempt to paint liberalism as a caricature of its
>)intention ... all the better to turn people off to the plight of those
>)who are truly in trouble.
The problem is that FACTS show you to be wrong.
"Political Correctness" is a term which was first used by Marxist
scholars about a century ago.
It was one of the methods recommended to prevent the
counter-revolution. The masses would be taught that a certain viewpoint
was absolutely necessary, and to blindly abhor the opposing Political
Incorrectness.
The term was used a short time later by a descendent of Marxism,
Antonio Gramsci, in the same context. Gramsci's works are a foundation of
modern Liberalism. A close friend of his, Benito Mussolini, adopted the
technique in his modification of Marxism...called Fascism. Hitler picked
it up from Mussolini. A child in Nazi Germany would turn in his parents
for being Politically Incorrect.
But, more recently, socialists/Liberals at some US college campuses
started using the terms. They got them from the old Marxists, and were
-seriously- applying them to the absolutes of Liberalism versus the
wrongthink of non-Liberalism. They also helped generate the modern usage
of "wrongheaded" and "Conventional wisdom".
Because our mainstream media is largely out of socialist
universities in the US, this passed into the media, first as a SERIOUS
term, and then as a mockery when those not brainwashed with Liberalism
got hold of it and saw how pathetic it was.
Two years ago, when I lived in Baltimore, I could still pop down
to a coffee shop near Johns Hokpins and find Liberal/socialists who
believed that Political Correctness was a good thing, to be proud of, and
that it was good that people might learn to react against anything
Politically Incorrect.
>)This is straying away from the "victim" theme, but consider the
>)Smithsonian exhibit on the Enola Gay. The purpose of the display was to
>)give a better rounded view on the matter than the textbook "with two
>)bombs we ended Japanese villainy" oversimplification. The discussion of
>)the Japanese didn't treat them with kid gloves: it made damn sure that
>)their ruthlessness and agressiveness were well-understood. How did the
>)papers report this? That the display was Japanese-friendly because it
>)questioned the "necessary evil" conclusion, quotes were taken out of
>)context to make it look like the kamikaze pilots were objects of
>)admiration, and so on.
No, it was "Japanese-friendly" because it was specifically
ONE-SIDED against the Bomb, ignoring the fact that the move -unarguably-
saved millions of US and Japanese lives.
Not only was the implication that it might have been a terribly
wrong thing to do about as ridiculous as the claim that there was no
Holocaust, it was the PRIMARY implication of the exhibit.
And we ARE talking about the BOMB. You manage to somehow to
completely ignore that issue, the primary problem with the exhibit.
>)So I can't help but wonder if the media is lying its ass off when it
>)complains about how far "political correctness" goes. White men still
>)run this country, that's a fact ... it sure seems to me that PChood isn't
>)very efficacious.
White men run this country? How Politically Correct of you. You
mean the White Males in Congress, who are elected primarily by women?
You mean the officers of corporations, who got their starts thirty or forty
years ago when there -was- actually a serious problem? The only problem
today is the interference of the government, which is -aggrevating-
anything else, keeping the tensions and biases around at all.
>)Funny thing, though. "All those Politically Correct people" tend to be
>)somewhere else, don't they? It makes me wonder if they exist in >)anywhere the numbers they're made out to be.
You are an example of the Politically Correct. Go to any politics
group and you will find some reactionary Liberal/socialists arguing in a
blindly Politically Correct fashion.
>): The media dares not tell us the truth (its that bad) so its members (on
>): the right and the left) have contented themselves with constructing
>): elaborate but easily accessible fairy tales, complete with big bad wolves >): and knights in shining armor.
>)Well, I agree on this point. The point I disagree on, however, is that
>)the media even brings any political correctness into the picture. How
>)many years now have articles been published about the excesses of PC?
>)When's the last time you saw an article about how valuable PC is? When
>)"Newsweek" all but exonerated Mike Tyson recently for his raping a
>)woman, calling it simply "grubby lovemaking", I see that as a lot more
>)characteristic of the media's repeated position on matters: denounce
And you prove your opponant's point again. Political Correctness
has you so blind that you assume the Evil Male -did- rape her, dispite
the complete lack of real evidence.
You assume, I'm sure, that Clarence Thomas is really a bad guy
who did terrible things to women, despite a complete lack of any evidence
and the obvious bias and agenda of his accusers.
This is Political Correctness...and it still causes a lot of
damage.
It was ironic to watch Duelling Political Correctness in the
Simpson case. The Liberal/socialists couldn't decide whether the badguy
was the Evil Male for his abuse of power, or the Evil White for his abuse
of power. Couldn't figure out if it was the Evil Rich Guy buying justice,
or the Oppressed Black Guy having justice torn from his hands.
The Politically Correct mindset left you guilty no matter which
way you decided.
What a joke.
>)anything resembling social or personal justice as an overreaction by "all
>)those Politically Correct people". If I so much as say that illegal
>)immigrants in California have a positive effect on the economy by doing
>)hard work for slave wages, I'm being "Politically Correct". If I
>)complain that immigrants aren't being paid enough, again I'm being
>)"Politically Correct". Seems the ONLY stance that the media will back up
>)is the "boot 'em out before they bleed us dry" approach of the 'Pubs.
You are being Politically Correct because you are blindly
rationalizing the issue, forced by the Politically Correct mindset to
ignore most of the factors and reason inductively.
For example: The main problem debated recently was whether the
-legitimate- members of the society should be FORCED to finance socialism
given for free to people who FAILED to enter the society legitimately,
and who often entered it solely to leech off of the producers.
Did you know that a MAJORITY of the health care costs of
California, over 60%, are spend on illegals and their children?
>)Political Correctness? It exists only as a straw man for Conservatives
>)to take on. If they didn't, then they'd have to answer the tough
>)questions, like why the Federal Reserve tries to maintain a 6.2%
>)unemployment rate.
It exists because Liberal/socialists invented it as a tool to
keep people from listening to the truths which shatter the lies of all
socialism.
The problem is that in the Information Revolution, such
propoganda techniques cannot work the way they did in Nazi Germany. So
you are reduced to trying to obscure the meanings and blame it on others...
--
Words of the Sentient:
Punishment for the sake of retribution
is not permissible under the Eighth Amendment.
--Thurgood Marshall, Supreme Court Justice
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: kaz@upx.net (KAZ Vorpal)
Peter Hipwell (petehip@cogsci.ed.ac.uk) wrote:
>)dynasor@infi.net (Dennis McClain-Furmanski) writes:
>)>Once it became socially accepted, and even supported, to have someone
>)>there to bail you out of your problems, even the previously well
>)>intentioned programs such as the "war on poverty" got twisted into
>)>something that prevents individual maturity.
>)Are you saying the Samaritans shouldn't be there? Can't crisis help
>)let you REACH individual maturity? May be misconstruing you here...
There were NO SAMARITANS in the "War on Poverty".
The "war on poverty" was actually a war on the poor, with
excursions to attack everyone else except the ruling class of Big
Brotherment.
You cannot be a "good samaritan" if you are FORCED to help someone...
And you cannot be a "good samaritan" if you FORCE someone to help them.
And that is what Liberalism and all other government socialism does.
--
Words of the Sentient:
Steve Forbes' entry into the Republican race for president deserves a warm
welcome from anyone who cares about prosperity. At last, the crowded field
contains someone who's making growth the centerpiece of his campaign. [He
is] the only candidate willing to fight head-on the absurd rules and procedures that the Washington establishment uses to makes significant tax reduction next to impossible. -- Editorial Investor's Business Daily (9/25/95)
Original file name: Subgen Research Project ViÉ
This file was converted with TextToHTML - (c) Logic n.v.