|
Discussion and Debate>
Join in on a strand below or start a new strand.
Page:
1
2
Ego and bombasity
JB
1613 posts
May 23, 2007
9:01 PM
|
I am intrigued by these two human characteristics. Generally, they are looked upon negatively. Yet surely most every person who has done something significant in the world -- be it grandly humane or shockingly cruel, be it artistically provocative or technically innovative -- must have significant ego and a healthy degree of bombast.
I'd like to hear what others think of these characteristics and would be interested to hear your thoughts about how ego and bombasity play into the achievements or downfalls of specific public persons in any field.
|
me.
1193 posts
May 25, 2007
5:09 AM
|
This is a topic which interests me greatly, because it links up with free-will/determinism/fatalism and with relativism/absolutism in ethics.
I think that values are relative. But from the point of view of a given person or group they can be absolute. (I.e. relativism is correct, but pure relativism can only be logical abstraction.)
This is the basis of materialist, dialectical outlook also.
Basically, all things are judged from a point of view. Judgements have a value, they are real and necessary for humans to function. For example, one must judge most mushrooms and toadstools as poisonous. To suspend judgement on it on some principle would be stupid. But it is poisonous *to humans*. It is from a point of view, but within that point of view, it is absolutely correct (more or less).
That wasn't controversial, but what follows will be.
From the point of view of nationalists in Germany, adolf hitler is still a great man. A problem solver. An organiser. A speaker, a patriot, and a brave soldier. He expanded germany's borders to its greatest extent, he predicted success, and success followed. From the point of view of a german nationalist, in the year say 1940, hitler truly was good. Great even.
The trouble is, few of us are german nationalists in the world. More of us belong to those who stand not to gain from a german nationalist expansionist movement. From our point of view he was bad. Catastrophic even.
Is it all relative? Yes. But not mystically, not in a pure way. To those who aren't german, hitler absolutely is bad, its not just a random judgement, or a judgement "of equal value to anyone elses" (a matter of taste or opinion). Factually, absolutely, for non-germans hitler is bad.
This is why I get fed up with americans going on about the "right" thing to do, with priests talking morality.
When morality is presented as being abolute (not from any point of view) it ends up having no point of view - i.e. being prone to leading to above-individual (God-based, tradition-based and other idiocies)points of view. And these don't exist! Or rather, they have still to be interpreted by men... this is where the priest's power comes in to it. Morality, suspended in the air goes nowhere. It is plucked from the air and "interpreted" in an absolute way (Gott mit Uns) whenever convenient.
Take the israel palestine conflict. Doesn't concern us right? Each thinks they are right. *From where I'm standing*, as it affects me, neither is right. Because I have nothing to do with either community. However, as a citizen of the world where what they do affects me indirectly (increasing jihad against the europeans due entirely to israeli-newyork aggression) I have to take a view on this. The view will be that this needs to stop. Two options, either: I support the liquidation of enough palestinians to kill off the jihadist movement. Or, I support the withdrawal and shrinking of Israel. The first will backfire for EVERYONE and ME. the second will have a negative effect only for ISRAEL and NEWYORKER tourist jews, and east eupropean jews, who want somewhere to belong (fair enough, but... I'm not jewish am I?).
Morality doesn't come into. Reason (rationality) is the key to success. But is reason behind the "roadmap"? No, colin powells friends and ari fleischer's mates and kissinger and boris berezhovsky, and rupert murdoch and Lord Levy etc are running britain and america.
More examples:
Plastic wrappers: convenient, cheap. Good- from a private corporations point of view. Truly good, but relative to them only.
Wasteful, too long lasting (not biodegradable), poisonous. Bad- from the point of view of anyone who lives in the environment, or who depends on biodiversity and healthy drinking water etc. That's everyone! Truly bad, for everyone who isn't in the company's payroll.
The question comes up, who should win? The answer is: who are you? back the team you belong to, don't concede the goodness of things that aren't good for you.
Aeroplanes- good for people, bad for birds!
Electric fences - good for landowners, indifferent for all others, bad for animals.
American army- good for halliburton, the superrich, multinational corporations. Bad for everyone else, including its soldiers (who are used up more than they benefit from their service.)
Is anyone else bored of "morality" which is left suspended in the air? The kind you get from "middle america".
Incidentally, guns are bad from my point of view, and most peoples, because we don't WANT to carry guns and kill people, just because a few people do want to.
So this morality is relative, but for me, its absolutely right, no need to concede, that you shouldn't have one.
Seeing as we all think we're right, absolutely; but in truth we are right, but only realitively, to position in life and to our quality of information; Ego plays the only significant role in determining what we do.
Ego is the end of everything, and 'morality' is the means. But when morality becomes finally tied to reason, reason of the majority, the workers instead of the spongers (capitalists), the people who live in the billions in the cities instead of the few in the countryside, etc etc, then ego will provide the motive force that it should be for better outcomes for We the People.
Last Edited on 25-May-2007 5:22 AM
|
me.
1194 posts
May 25, 2007
5:28 AM
|
Alternative points of view (all wrong, incidentally:)
- all views are of equal weight. (no, only from the point of view of the uninvolved and indifferent.) As a worker, for example the views of the rich or the wholly non-productive matter not one bit. From a rich mans point of view, the idea of us workers being involved in economics is heresy.
- all thing are purely relative. (no, this is to say that everything is unimportant, have no effect. Clearly, if something affects you, its effect is real, and therefore aboslutely real.)
Last Edited on 25-May-2007 5:29 AM
|
Jorge
82 posts
May 26, 2007
11:04 AM
|
Hi Julie and everyone else! I started a blog:
http://www.undulations.net
I've actually been pondering this topic these last few days, and you inspired me to actually make the first post. Read it. :)
|
me.
1195 posts
May 29, 2007
5:03 AM
|
I read your blog, it was interesting and well-thought out.
Enlightened self interest is synonymous with altruism. The confusion comes when altruism is defined as a pure, abstracted category of doing something entirely for someone elses benefit.
The confusion is Man-made, but not there in reality.
A bit like the chicken and the egg, tree falling in the woods, one hand clapping etc.
The pure category of altruism does not exist because:
- The world is interconnected. Man does not live alone, as is affected by others. Therefore even if he does something which he thinks is only between him and the subject he acts upon, he also has an effect upon further others, which will in some way come back upon himself. You give 50 dollars to the salvation army, they use the money to feed a drunken hobo, he's off the street for that day. While he's off the street, he's not hungry so he doesn't have to try to attack your aunt's friend's neighbour for food. Five steps removed, sort of thing, the bit of good done comes back, in the sense that there will be one less (or two if you count the feeding of a starving capitalist reject) story out there which would bring everyone down to fear and depression.
This I think is "the reward" the altruist is working for. Because everyone has a motivation to action. This is the 'general good', and if there never was any comeback, a positive result now and then, then frankly there would be no-one who did anything 'altruistically'. But equating such a person with their ugly selfish selves, ayn rand etc seeks not the truth, but to smear others with the shitty stick which people like her certainly merit.
But then, it is typical of the rightwing nutter to see all others as inherently rotten- when it is the mind and eyes with which they see the world that is rotten.
You look through a dirty telescope, and what do you see? Mud everywhere!
Last Edited on 29-May-2007 5:08 AM
|
me.
1196 posts
May 29, 2007
5:21 AM
|
By the way
Panchen lama, dalai lama: these men live in male-only gilded palaces atop heavenly mountain paradises while their people scratch the dirt for food.
Most of the dirt there can't even be cultivated. So they scratch Yak's nipples for curdled crud and burn the dung for cooking crud-cakes.
These men are chosen at birth to be absolute rulers over an illiterate backward nation. They celebrate a lack of progress as a victory of spirituality over materialism.
Meanwhile, they fly everywhere in AEROPLANES, wear industrially produced and dyed cotton, eat food from fields grown according to latest scientific practices. They write books bound and published with advanced industrial materials and processes.
Religious philosophies never seem to be allowed to get in the way of reality do they?
Surrounded by adoring peasants, with one in seven tibetan males becoming a priest and a burden upon the rest,
Such a man sees you and I as another peasant. A peasant to be fooled and emotionally engaged for the sake of political influence and donations.
So he's a monarch, a high-priest, a celibate male, locked away from reality from childhood, surrounded by creeping flatterers and unearnt wealth.
I've read a lot of the buddhas works - his dialectics is good and correct and insightful, but his placing of a higher unseen reality above this one is fundamentally wrong and leads to the same sort of contradictions as the other religions.
From buddha, who far from withdrawing from the world, interacted with it in many different ways before settling down, you can learn some interesting things.
But the dalai lives like the buddha lived BEFORE he left his princely life. He is the opposite of Buddha!
What could you possibly learn from him?
Don't be fooled by kind words. If it's the truth you want, then it can't be had in exchange for attending anti-chinese
rallies and eating mung beans and depriving yourself of love, of sex and of unorthodox thinking.
You've got your own mind, which is more than most people have, don't waste it on ghosts and what happens after you die. You won't be around to know!
Last Edited on 29-May-2007 5:29 AM
|
jopaku
203 posts
May 29, 2007
9:31 PM
|
I am wondering why you are interested in this subject?
I think ego and bombasity are necessary characterics of leaders. Leaders of any kind. Bush and Gandhi. The CEO of a corporation, and the head of a local street gang. All have these traits in common. They are definitely masculine traits and probably have something to do with the reason why men have always ruled the world.
Don't blame me. I don't make the laws of nature. I am just an impartial observer.
What are your thoughts?
|
jopaku
204 posts
May 29, 2007
9:59 PM
|
It just occurred to me how humility and ego/bombasity are completely opposing traits. If humility is all about putting the needs of others first, and the ego is all about putting yourself first, how do we expect to get truly genuine leaders?
|
Jorge
84 posts
May 30, 2007
12:35 PM
|
Humans are never a constant. We each possess the ability for ego-driven ambition and humility-inducing self-reflection. The most aware of us understand this duality within themselves, although that doesn't always translate into them being the most effective leaders. It usually helps, though.
|
me.
1198 posts
May 31, 2007
5:12 AM
|
No, cause women don't have egos do they? (sarcasm?)
I think you'll find it's too much me me taking it personally, emotionally involved can't keep business and vendetta seperate that makes women disunited.
In fact then, too much ego is why they "don't rule the world" but then nor do you, so maybe you're not a real man?
Once again, impeccable 'logic'
|
JB
1616 posts
Jun 01, 2007
10:02 AM
|
First of all, I agree with Jorge that ego/bombasity are generally a duality, in constant interplay, especially in a self-reflective person.
Secondly, I don't think ego and bombasity are gendered at all. Sure, social structures have created gender roles, but individual reality is far more dynamic than those roles. Both genders are all over the map in terms of personality traits and ways they are creative or seek power. What I think Jo is talking about is patriarchy, which I see as a socially constructed hierarchal system that plenty of women participate in, or fall into.
What I do agree with is that ego is what drives us to do anything of impact in the world, whether humanistic or imperialistic, creative or destructive. Bombast is a trait I've grown kind of fond of, at least in creative people. We need some larger-than-life personalities to provoke and illuminate the rest of us.
It seems that every revolutionary, dictorial, or creative person had a large ego, for this is what enabled them to push their ideas and actions beyond the norm. I guess the other part of the equation is whether or not the ego and bombasity in question is mixed with empathy. Without empathy those qualities become destructive. With empathy they become creative forces.
To answer Jopaku, my previous paragraph is exactly why I am interested. Some of my favorite public figures of the past and present have a notable degree of ego and bombasity (Walt Whitman! Sherman Alexie! Barbara Boxer! Michael Moore! Spike Lee! Sojourner Truth! Malcolm X! The Guerilla Girls!) Ego and bombast are generally seen as negative traits, but when mixed with compassion, creativity, and an interest in social justice, they seem necessary to further public dialog and social change.
|
jopaku
205 posts
Jun 01, 2007
9:14 PM
|
I guess I was thinking in terms of "ambition" rather than vanity. In order to rule the world, you first must want too.
ME, you seem to think women are emotionally unequipped. Do you think it is due to their menstrual cycle?
I just think it is natural for them to have different desires. If you believe in evolution, don't you think that it would make sense for the two genders to compliment each other and not compete?
Last Edited on 1-Jun-2007 10:13 PM
|
JB
1621 posts
Jun 02, 2007
12:49 AM
|
Hey, there is plenty of ambitous women all over the world in every field imaginable. There are nurturers and healers AND power hungry cut-throat women in the patriarchal sense. There are artists, writers, politians, activists, and you will only see more and more women competing with men in every walk of life as society evolves.
It is 3:30 AM, but if you need a list to be convinced I'll do it later.
I didn't interpret ME as saying women are unequipped. I think he is chiding you. Menstral cycle? That always makes me smirk. Dudes got PLENTY of hormone problems of their own. Heard of testosterone? Listen, it comes down to the individual and their particular hormones and ways of coping as their brains develop in a given environment.
Do men and women compliment each other? Sure. Sometimes. Sometimes not. People are people; gender isn't exclusively deterministic. Culture, individuality, education, environment -- all these things are as big a factor as gender. So the genders compliment, compete and overlap across a wide continuum.
We need a healthy dynamic of diversity within and across gender identity to move society forward.
Hey, and I think in the right culture, most of us would be bi-sexual anyway! Sorry boys! Who's to say?
|
me.
1200 posts
Jun 02, 2007
4:42 AM
|
I recently had the shits and stomach cramps for a week after I ate a bucket of undercooked chicken.
So I've got sympathy for any creature who gets stomach cramps for a week, but who doesn't even get the pleasure of stuffing their faces with carrion.
It's like children. They're weak - but you wouldn't hold that against them would you? You wouldn't say "you're not pulling your weight" to them when it came to moving furniture! Same as third world poor didn't choose to be, nor did I choose to be a tall, strong, superintelligent first world dominant white male. (Ego?) No one deserves any praise, nor any credit, for what they had no part in choosing.
As a right winger who believes in privilege and inequality and in taking advantage of the weak, how would you rationalise the opposite?
Last Edited on 2-Jun-2007 4:44 AM
|
jopaku
208 posts
Jun 02, 2007
6:54 AM
|
You are giving a pretty good argument for social darwinism.
You're saying people are who they are, so don't try and change them.
I don't need a list of ambitious women, I know they exist.
I am just saying that it isn't the patriarchal society that suppresses their ambition, but a feminist society that exaggerates it.
Left alone, boys wil play with guns, ang girls with dolls.
You take away the dolls, and at some point, many years later, you will have an ambitious career woman who realizes her real desire is to have a family and be a nurturer and caregiver first, with her career a distant second.
That is the natural way.
I think the Hillarys and Condoleezas of the world are anomalies.
By the way, I am not a "right winger".
I am an independent coservative.
|
JB
1623 posts
Jun 02, 2007
2:42 PM
|
No, no, no. All that is socialized. We give boys guns. We give girls dolls. It's a failure of the imagination of socialized adults. By the way, I never played with dolls. I played some with china animals, but mostly acted out plays and imaginary games with my best friend. These were on all subjects, not just babies, marriage, and romance. I was also into sci-fi and fantasy worlds.
My list would have included Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters, Barbara Boxer, Amy Goodwin, Teresa Bonpane, Adriana Huffington, Maxine Hong Kingston, Alice Walker, Toni Morrison, Maya Angelou, Barbara Kruger, etc. -- and that is not looking abroad. Ambition can be fierce and transformative without being patriarchal.
|
jopaku
210 posts
Jun 02, 2007
3:18 PM
|
The differences between the sexes are inborn. That has been proven time and time again. Even your modern day feminists seem to acknowledge that. You're a generation behind in your thinking.
That has to be the most offensive list of women I have ever seen. I don't know who Bonpane, Kingston, or Kruger are, but I would probably imprison Waters and Lee just on general principle. Maxine Waters is venomous, hate-filled, racist who is the moral equivilant to any KKK member you can pick at random. I'm surprised you didn't put Cynthia McKinney on the list.
Ariana Huffington? I'm surprised to see her there. She is clearly a phony and an opportunist, and I thought that was obvious to everyone. Except maybe, Michael Huffington.
The top of my list?
Xena Warrior Princess
Lara Croft Tomb Raider
Buffy the Vampire Slayer
|
JB
1624 posts
Jun 02, 2007
8:00 PM
|
Hee hee. I am not a generation behind. You are. I read contemporary feminist theory on a regular basis, not just Time magazine. Today the whole concept of feminism is that there is not one way to be a woman, or a man, a someone with gender ambiguity. Be a housewife, a career woman, a house husband, a career man, or any combination. Modern feminism acknowledges the difficult balancing act in modern life, but no one individual life should be gender determined. If there is one major theme in modern feminism is about choice and respecting choice and difference.
Sorry my list offends you! But bring on Cynthia McKinney!
She is one of the few to stand against voting corruption that denied Black districts in Florida. Do you think the voting corruption was just some conspiracy theory? The evidence is so overwhelming it is accepted by even the mainstream papers. Are you sure you are not a Republican? They devote a lot of propaganda against her, since it is in their political interests to deny that corruption happened.
|
jopaku
211 posts
Jun 02, 2007
9:08 PM
|
I think you are just drawn in by her "bombastic" personality. That, and the fact that she pisses off the people you don't like.
The average black person cringes every time they see someone like her in the news. I know a few that have told me that they actually think there is a conspiracy by the white power structure to insure that their leadership is made up of those who are incapable of being taken seriously.
They have a one party system in which any dissent at all is quickly sqashed. That's how you get a mayor of d.c. who gets caught smoking crack with a prostitute, and then gets sent back to office, soon after. There is virtually no political accountability in urban communities.
|
jopaku
212 posts
Jun 02, 2007
9:28 PM
|
If I am a republican, it's by default. Whatever problems I have with Bush, none of them lead me to wish I voted for Kerry. Because I am surrounded here in Boltland by raving leftist lunatics, it makes me a little more republican than I really am. I am actually more of a conservative democrat, but they don't exist anymore. To me, the perfect candidate would be some sort of pro-life, ralph nader type, with nationalistic tendencies. A hybrid of Pat Buchanan and Nader perhaps.
|
JB
1625 posts
Jun 02, 2007
9:33 PM
|
Actually, I like her dedication, organization, intellect, courage, and life-risking activism.
So, I'm wondering, who is the "average" Black person and how are you in a position to know what "they" think? Because you know a few Black people who told you this?
More significantly, do YOU think there was no voter fraud in Florida? Although on a much smaller scale, that is quite like being a Holocaust denier.
Watch documentaries like American Blackout, Stealing America: Vote by Vote, Hacking Democracy, or the multiple books on the subject. Watch and read with all the skeptism and cynicism you want. Then check your facts from multiple sources.
Really, for an otherwise intelligent and engaged person, I don't understand what you are standing for on these issues and why.
|
JB
1626 posts
Jun 02, 2007
9:47 PM
|
Well, we agree on Nader at least!
With a smile on my face, I object to being called a raving leftist lunatic. Primarily because I don't rave; I debate, and with no more gumption than you. You call me and others lunatics, merely because you don't agree with what we say. I could call you the same, but won't, because I kind of like you any way.
I'll accept leftist part, though I'm not a linear thinker, so I bristle a little at that, just as you bristle at being called a Republican. However, of course in American politics I would be considered a Liberal, and given the actual meaning of that word, I don't mind that at all.
Now, I WILL admit that there have been TIMES we have what seems a raving Marxist on this site. HOWEVER, in his defense, I think when he sounds lunaticy, he is usually jesting or drunk (by his own admission in the past...) And though I don't always agree with him, or at least his terminology, he can be quite logical.
Jorge, Civ, and others seem as logical as they come, and certainly do not rave. We'll let them decide if they are leftists, or liberals, or don't like labels, or what.
I have neglected this site for some time. I think we need new voices in Boltland. (And eventually a new layout.)
|
jopaku
213 posts
Jun 02, 2007
10:37 PM
|
Start asking those you know, about various african american leaders. Do it discreetly though. In public they may be apprehensive.
You are not a lunatic in the literal sense, but I still find it difficult to fathom that you seem to be completely oblivious to how far left you are.
It's not your fault though. It's where you grew up. It's the schools you went to. You actually went to a communist college! Too many years in California, and a profession that doesn't expose you to conservative thinking.
What I am trying to say is, that I like you too!.
|
JB
1627 posts
Jun 03, 2007
9:12 AM
|
Jopaku, I ask these questions discretely and overtly in everyday life and for a living. What I've learned is "Black" people are incredibly diverse culturally, economically, politically, and just plain individually. Just like any other racial category. You just aren't going to get One answer or find s ome Universal Spokesperson. It seems a silly to suggest otherwise.
Sure my world view has a lot to do with how I brought up. I was fortunate enough to go to a diverse public school and then The United Nations International School. Then, through a series of strange events and luck, I got to travel to many places around the world at a young formative age.
My parents were then only moderate liberals and carried some issues from their small towns in Kansas in North Carolina. But I was lucky they brought me up in Greenwich Village, even though it was a teeny-tiny apartment, and sent me to those schools.
I am assuming it is Bard that you are calling a "communist" school. To me this laughable in the extreme. Despite it's hippy dippy reputation, it was a haven for very wealthy kids who want to rebel by wearing lots of black and eyeliner and drink till they puke for the first time. (In all fairness, while I felt like the town pauper, I was already deep into the black clothes and eyeliner part...) Anyway, while I was there, the curriculum was anything if not traditional, leaning on conservative. And virtually all my professors were white, and every text I read was by a white author. My experience there was completely patriarchal and Eurocentric
Temple was pretty much the same, but surprisingly it was my other graduate schools, New Mexico State and The University of Arizona, where I actually received some progressive education.
|
JB
1628 posts
Jun 03, 2007
9:17 AM
|
Oh, and I am not oblivious. I work very consciously to understand social realities, their layers and dimensions. I work to overcome my own biases which inevitably sneak in. If that makes me leftist, great! Would that, therefore, make being compartmentalized and overly- deterministic qualities of the "right?"
|
Siddeeq
1 post
Jun 03, 2007
10:25 AM
|
Good day everyone. This is my first time on JulietheBolt's network, and I see a lot of "progressive" discussion goin' on
Now, JB, what political party would you regard yourself if yo were to vote?
And jopaku don't you think you can revive your own form of democratic party? It may be that JB chose to be what she is today because of personal experience, because of instinct, and because of the science she trusts. Hope I'm not been too abstract?
To everyone, my philosophy is: if you think you're on the right track (e.g. belonging to the right political affiliation), and you're a person who is sym/empathetic (I assume you're sym/empathetic since you all sound like political activists), then it is your responsibility to take charge and convince the rest of humanity to follow the right path. Therefore, you should assume the role of a savior, and not just argue fruitlessly with other human beings. How happy would you feel if I chose to walk over what I see as a lawn, when to you it is but a carpet placed over a 20 meters deep, and 10 meters wide well? Would you let me bury myself alive just because I physically believe that I'm having fun walking on the lawn?
Yours in realistic peace and unity.
Last Edited on 3-Jun-2007 10:30 AM
|
jopaku
214 posts
Jun 03, 2007
1:39 PM
|
To the new guy,
I gave up on the democratic party 20 years ago. To me, they have went too far left. Now they are somewhere between socialism and communism. The party of JFK is now best represented by the neo-cons in the republican party. But either way, at this point I think we need a new movement. Neither party represents the middle class.
And unfortunately, I am not an activist. Just a disgruntled working class, white, heterosexual, catholic, that feels he has absolutely no representation in this country.
JB, the college reference was inspired by your school president, who I believe is/was a communist. If the curriculum was a disappointment to you back then, 20 years of his influence has most likely changed that.
As far as the compartmentalized determinist remark goes, I have been thinking about it, and I have to say that I feel comfortable being called that. Determinism, to me, isn't a republican or even religious attitude. It is more philosophical, and maybe even a little cosmic. Whatever happens, is meant to happen, and whatever will happen, probably already did.
By the way, did you go to high school with Yasmine Bleeth?
|
jopaku
215 posts
Jun 03, 2007
2:20 PM
|
About the Universal spokesperson for the african- american community, there is one. It's the democratic party. Over 90% vote that way, which I find astonishing. There are so many issues in which the party does not represent them well. Especially on social issues. Do you think 90% of blacks support abortion rights? Or gay marriage? That was my whole point. It seems that Al Sharpton has been accepted by the media as the president of the black community. All I am trying to say is that if you questioned people individually, you would see that most have an unfavorable opinion of him. They may feel the need to defend him if they feel an attack on him is really an attack on them, but I think their attitude is more along the lines of, "well, he does more good then bad, and there really isn't anyone else who gets the attention he does"
The day a black politician doesn't need to go to him for support, is the day you can legitimately have a chance at getting the first black president of the U.S.
Or the second black mayor of N.Y.C.
|
JB
1629 posts
Jun 03, 2007
3:25 PM
|
Leon Botstein a Communist? Ha, ha, ha! I worked in the kitchen of his house. He is an old school Eurocentric liberal. He did create a program that Andrew Lee was a part of that allowed students with high grades and less economic means to attend Bard. It was called The Higher Education Opportunity Program. I read his book, Jefferson's Children, which is all about his ideals of American democracy as applied to education. There is nothing communist about it. It is about intellectual freedom. It is all about strengthening the middle class. I'm not at all clear where you derive your interprtation. However, if you consider HEOP at all socialist in nature, then I'm all for it. All those kids were smart and deserved to be there.
And yeah, I went to school with Spazzy Yazzy, who was my good pal some of the time, though I lost touch with her by her Baywatch Days.
As for the other remarks, I'll return later.
|
jopaku
216 posts
Jun 03, 2007
3:55 PM
|
I wasn't referring to the Heop program, which is a good one.
I have had it in my head for over 20 years that he was one, not based on anything other than being told so, probably by our mutual past aquaintance. Trying to research it now has been a little difficult, but I did find that he instituted the Alger Hiss Chair for social studies back in 88. There was probably a lot of controversy over that, and more condemning info would have been available at the time.
|
jopaku
217 posts
Jun 03, 2007
4:45 PM
|
I had a really big crush on Yasmine back in the Baywatch era. She has had a few problems since then, but I hope she is alright now. Her wikipedia bio says that the girls in high school used to beat her up. Where were you?
|
JB
1630 posts
Jun 03, 2007
4:54 PM
|
We had some pseudo "crews" in high school. It is possible that "The Fallen Angels," a year older than us, made idle threats. I can't speak for my own pseudo crew ("Outlandos D'Amor -- oh, the pain, I know, I know...), but unless Y was being especially catty, I know I would have had her back. (Not that I had muscle, but at least in principle!) After all, she used to lend me her clothes, because mine sucked. (And she let me know it!)
The truth is, I don't think anyone ever hurt a hair on her head, but there was talk, and hell, it makes a good story.
|
JB
1631 posts
Jun 03, 2007
4:56 PM
|
Not sure about the Alger Hiss thing, but there seems as much evidence that he wasn't a spy as there is to the contrary. And hey, he helped start the UN, which despite its considerable flaws, if reformed, remains our best hope.
|
JB
1632 posts
Jun 04, 2007
2:30 PM
|
In answer to Siddeeq, I'm registered with The Green Party. I am considering re-registering as a Democrat to vote in the primaries and then, depending on the results, I will probably change back. The Green Party is very well suited to my world view and I think the two party system is corrupt. I wouldn't change for the primaries if I didn't think the stakes were so high. It is a bit of a moral dilemna.
Let's hear more from you, on this or a strand of your invention!
|
me.
1202 posts
Jun 05, 2007
1:04 AM
|
"I gave up on the democratic party 20 years ago. To me, they have went too far left. Now they are somewhere between socialism and communism."
I'm sorry, but... Are you a nutter? Only, "socialism" has a meaning. "communism" means something too.
Second question:
Are you all nutters?? Only, if you can let obvious mental illness just pass by unchallenged like that, I wonder if labolt is run from a padded cell?
|
me.
1203 posts
Jun 05, 2007
1:07 AM
|
Picture the human body as society.
Upper class- head
Middle class- stomach height
working class- legs
underclass - feet
Now here's society according to americans:
Upper class - doesn't exist (democracy)
Middle class - people around the knee-height mark
working class - same as underclass
|
me.
1204 posts
Jun 05, 2007
1:17 AM
|
Who represents the working class?
This would be the party that sees no differences between people on the basis of skin colour, language, gender, sexual lifestyle. All working-(wo)men are equal because they all contribute to our society. Only spongers (rich and poor) need remaking.
This would be a party that claims for the working class First Place in society, and never concedes it to any other class, though it may make coalition with them.
This would be a party that believes the working class has a destiny, is a people for itself, and not merely of itself; which it is the job of the party and (truely) middle-class sympathisers to bring into bloom.
This is a party that rejects superstition, but values literacy and education; that rejects aggressive invasion, but prepares to defend the working class with as much blood as possible;
It is a party that requires grim reality as its sociological perspective, mixed with hope for the future and a belief in man's potential; It needs reality to better know the enemy, to make fewer mistakes; it needs hope, because all men live in hope, their ego demands it, if they are to make any effort.
Finally it would be a party that remains not merely in favour of, but controlled by, working people, and only working people.
Try and make such a party as that in america, and you will be killed! Are you really working class?
Then you better know your enemy - the priest who is sponging off you, the boss who is profiting from you, the country that is murdering millions on your behalf
Last Edited on 5-Jun-2007 1:23 AM
|
JB
1635 posts
Jun 05, 2007
11:55 AM
|
You have fairly shamed me. I should have challenged that, but after a long day just laughed and shrugged.
|
jopaku
218 posts
Jun 05, 2007
5:05 PM
|
Since you have accepted the socialism charge, let me explain the communism part.
The main distinction between the two is the loss of liberties. Liberals in america have been picking away at the bill of rights for quite some time now. They have been able to do this from the ground up. It started back in the 60's with the hippies. By the time the 70's came around they had cleaned themselves up, just enough, to get jobs as teachers, aclu lawyers, reporters, politicians, etc.
Now their influence is unpenatrable. They dominate the universities, control most of the news outlets, took over the courts, and made their way to congress.
The suppression of free speech is getting more obvious as the days go by. Congress is now trying to enact th "Fairness Doctrine" which is an attempt to kill the last place where americans can voice their opinions,... talk radio.
What do communists need to take over?
They need to take away free speech, religion, and guns. They need to break down the family structure by pushing abortion, divorce, euthanasia, and now gay marriage.
They need to flood the labor market with unlimited cheap labor, to cause division among the lower classes.
They need to control the airwaves,(what do you think of Chavez taking over the news station?) because if you do that, you control america.
They need to kill the american spirit.
I don't think there will be a United States of America fifty years from now.
|
me.
1207 posts
Jun 07, 2007
1:15 AM
|
You ended on a positive note I see, but none of these "predictions" are based on reality.
Now, I'm no scientist. I lie - I am- got a scientific management degree from one of the best universities in Britain- and I would say totally unbiassedly, that you've been played for a fool.
Here's how it has happened.
Remember Hitler? That devout catholic guy, bit like the pope, but doesn't seem to need as many bodyguards (I counted thirteen- how humble is that?).
Well he used to try to get people SCARED of the future. Then he give them HOPE on how to prevent this future happening. This would happen to coincide with COMPLETE UNITY AND OBEDIENCE to the nazi party.
If you FEEL persecuted but you can't say why, can't give us any concrete specific facts or examples to look at, of a nature as common and general as your assertions, but can only offer isolated one-offs and impressions
Then you've been had
|
me.
1231 posts
Jun 13, 2007
2:15 AM
|
Lost your plot, Benedict? Silence is consent - glad you agree then.
You shouldn't let people play with your feelings, and get you to do things because they pretend to be your friend. That's what these freaks do when they cosy on up to you in the church. Most of them are brainwashed themselves, so they are Genuine. But watch for the man with the collection tin...
It's all about getting your Cash and Free Labour out of you
Are you a sucker or an individual? Why put up with it?
Last Edited on 13-Jun-2007 2:17 AM
|
meimei
13 posts
Apr 05, 2010
8:51 PM
|
d animals are darn right "fashionable" for girls to have. Many girls will get a natural appearing plush cat or plush dog, just so they can carry it around in their little purses as they emulate fashionable women carrying around their small pets. Stuffed animals have certainly not gone out of style! Teenager's Symbols Teenagers may not play with toys any more
|
Gucci online
86 posts
Apr 23, 2010
12:23 AM
|
A P Gucci Outlet Online
Gucci outlet in
Gucci Purses
Baby Gucci Shoes
Gucci Shoes Sale
Coach Briefcases
Coach Coin Purse
Coach Shoes
Coach Shoes New Style
Coach Sneakers
MBT Chili
MBT VOI
Air Jordan XII
Air Jordan XIII
Air Jordan XIV
Air Jordan XV
Air Jordan XVI
Air Jordan 12
Air Jordan 13
Air Jordan 14
Air Jordan 15
Air Jordan 16
|
Replica Bags
64 posts
May 12, 2010
5:19 AM
|
Designer Handbags, Replica Designer Handbags, Designer Purses, Discount Designer Fashion Accessories from Louis Vuitton, news chanel handbags,Hermes,Gucci, Prada, Fendi, ...
Givenchy handbags
Lancel handbags
Mulberry handbags
Thomas Wylde handbags
Valentino handbags
Versace handbags
Christian Dior handbags
ALEXANDER WANG handbags
cheap Hermes Birkin 35CM Togo Leather Bag yellow
classic Hermes Birkin 35CM Togo Leather Bag dark blue
cheap miumiu orange leather 57511
cheap miumiu red cuir verni 57511
cheap miumiu white cuir verni 57511
classic Miu Miu 98661-rust red handbag
Jimmy Choo Handbag light coffee leather 1831
,Jimmy Choo Handbag beige leather 1831
Jimmy Choo Handbag black leather 0881
Givenchy Nightingale Handbag black 20109A
Bottega Veneta Medium Veneta Hobo Bag dark coffee 78920
Chloe Handbag Snakeskin pattern Cow Leather blue 50895S
3.1 Phillip Lim Handbag red leather 1832
Chanel black chamois 335524 handbag
Chloe Handbag Snakeskin pattern Cow Leather royal blue 50895S
Jimmy Choo Handbag black leather 1831
|
dai123
35 posts
Jun 21, 2010
1:11 AM
|
friended manifold Porsche Design replica watches thousand dollars seeing a Chopard Happy Sport Diamond 18kt Yellow Gold And Steel Ladies 27/8251-23/11 lady now ravishing owing Movado Esperanza Mens 0605096 to the Milgauss. However, Rado Coupole Mens R22301712 if the anti-magnetic aspect replica watches isn't the greatly central watches replica feature, consequently conceive about cheap Emporio Armani replicas looking since Corum Bubble Midsize Stainless Steel Unisex 039-250-20-0F02EB30R replica Ebel Beluga Mother-of-Pearl Diamond Mini Ladies 1215319 on sale replica Audemars Piguet Royal Oak Steel Blue Mens 25860ST.00.1110ST.03 on sale
<-----
|
any
27 posts
Jul 18, 2010
10:41 PM
|
LISA
Anyone interested in America's immediate future should read this book.The Ronald Reagan who won the cold Coach Outlet Store and Coach Bags and Cheap Coach, cut taxes, shrank the government, saved UGG Classic Tall of the economy, and was the most beloved president since FDR is a Air Jordan Shoes and Jordan Shoes, Bunch says....The truculent jingoist of the myth was concocted after Coach Purses silenced the man and the would-be juggernaut launched by the Michael Jordan Shoes in 1994 election triumph crashed and burned before a MBT Shoes president who shrank government and the Gucci Shoes, balanced the budget, and even racked up surpluses. Bunch names the leading nike dunk sb, venal mythmakers and shames the myth exploiters air max, too.
|
shan
114 posts
Jul 20, 2010
1:09 AM
|
Cheap custom nfl jerseys business is the latest in the world of fashion.If you are after the latest
cheap Indianapolis Colts jerseysthen you have come to the right place.If you are a fan then you will want to be sure you get hold of memorabilia such as the latest design of cheap Washington Redskins Jerseys.
|
zzs
38 posts
Jul 21, 2010
7:27 PM
|
These christian louboutin Replica shoes, which are being sold on the website, fulfill all the required expectations from a shoe. One of the most beautiful works of art in footwear would be the christian louboutin pumps Blue.If you love this brand shoes, you can go Christian Louboutin sale, and
Christian louboutin sandals. You would enjoy it!
|
fang
120 posts
Jul 28, 2010
11:14 PM
|
It's a interesting news,i like it.Additionally,wellcome to my website oboots.There are so many cheap ugg boots such as:
ugg ukuggs on salecheap ugg bootsugg classic boots
ugg bailey button|ugg bailey button boots|ugg argyle knit|ugg argyle knit boots|ugg cardy|ugg classic cardy boots|ugg crochet|ugg crochet boots|ugg flower|ugg flower boots|ugg leopard|ugg leopard boots|UGG Classic Tall Leopard|UGG Classic Tall Leopard boots|ugg mini|ugg classic mini boots|ugg paisley|ugg paisley boots|UGG Classic Short Paisley|UGG Classic Short Paisley boots|UGG Short Paisley|UGG Short Paisley boots|ugg short|ugg classic short boots|ugg tall|ugg classic tall boots|ugg elsey wedge|ugg elsey wedge boots|ugg infants erin|ugg infants erin boots|ugg langley|ugg langley boots|ugg lo pro|ugg lo pro boots|ugg locarno|ugg locarno boots|ugg mayfaire|ugg mayfaire boots|ugg nightfall|ugg nightfall boots|ugg rainier eskimo|ugg rainier eskimo boots|UGG Sundance II|UGG Sundance II boots|ugg ultimate bind|ugg ultimate bind boots|ugg ultra short|ugg ultra short boots|ugg ultra tall|ugg ultra tall boots|ugg suede|ugg suede boots|ugg upside|ugg upside boots|ugg roxy|ugg roxy boots|ugg seline|ugg seline boots|ugg corinth wedge|ugg corinth wedge boots|ugg liberty|ugg liberty boots|ugg highkoo|ugg highkoo boots|ugg knightsbridge|ugg knightsbridge boots|ugg bomber jacket|ugg bomber jacket boots|ugg adirondack|ugg adirondack boots|ugg suburb crochet|ugg suburb crochet boots|UGG Roseberry Suede|UGG Roseberry Suede Boots|UGG Smithfield Tall|UGG Smithfield Tall Boots|UGG Gaviota|UGG Gaviota Boots|UGG Brookfield Tall|UGG Brookfield Tall Boots|UGG Ashur|UGG Ashur Boots|UGG Cove|UGG Cove Boots|UGG Desoto|UGG Desoto Boots|UGG Shoreline|UGG Shoreline Boots|UGG Tess|UGG Tess Boots|UGG High Heel Tall|UGG High Heel Tall Boots|UGG Caroline|UGG Caroline Boots|UGG Stella|UGG Stella Boots|
ugg boots|uggs on sale|cheap ugg boots|ugg size guide|
UGG Stella Boots|
UGG Swell Tall Boots|
There are so much style of cheap ugg boots,so once you go to my website you will be very surprise.
|
fang
335 posts
Jul 29, 2010
6:41 PM
|
Our website is making a great promotion now. There are many preferential ugg boots . At present , hot sale ugg classic boots such as:
Snow Boots
| UGGs On Sale
| UGG Australia Boots
| UGG Classic Boots
UGG Gaviota
| UGG Gaviota Boots
UGG Swell Tall
| UGG Swell Tall Boots
UGG Roseberry
| UGG Roseberry Boots
UGG Brookfield Tall
| UGG Brookfield Tall Boots
UGG Stella
| UGG Stella Boots
UGG Caroline
| UGG Caroline Boots
UGG High-Heel Tall
| UGG High-Heel Tall Boots
UGG Tess
| UGG Tess Boots
UGG Desoto
| UGG Desoto Boots
UGG Brookfield
| UGG Brookfield Boots
UGG Smithfield
| UGG Smithfield Boots
UGG Shoreline
| UGG Shoreline Boots
UGG Ashur
| UGG Ashur Boots
UGG Cove
| UGG Cove Boots
UGG Men's Brookfield
| UGG Men's Brookfield Boots
UGG Bailey Button
| UGG Bailey Button Boots
UGG Argyle Knit
| UGG Classic Argyle Knit Boots
UGG Cardy
| UGG Classic Cardy Boots
UGG Crochet
| UGG Classic Crochet Boots
UGG Flower
| UGG Classic Flower Boots
UGG Leopard
| UGG Classic Tall Leopard Boots
UGG Mini
| UGG Classic Mini Boots
UGG Paisley
| UGG Classic Paisley Boots
UGG Short
| UGG Classic Short Boots
UGG Tall
| UGG Classic Tall Boots
UGG Elsey Wedge
| UGG Elsey Wedge Boots
UGG Infants Erin
| UGG Infants Erin Boots
UGG Langley
| UGG Langley Boots
UGG Lo Pro
| UGG Lo Pro Boots
UGG Lo Pro Button
| UGG Lo Pro Button Boots
UGG Locarno
| UGG Locarno Boots
UGG Mayfaire
| UGG Mayfaire Boots
UGG Nightfall
| UGG Nightfall Boots
UGG Rainier Eskimo
| UGG Rainier Eskimo Boots
UGG Sundance II
| UGG Sundance II Boots
UGG Ultimate Bind
| UGG Ultimate Bind Boots
UGG Ultra Short
| UGG Ultra Short Boots
UGG Ultra Tall
| UGG Ultra Tall Boots
UGG Suede
| UGG Suede Boots
UGG Upside
| UGG Upside Boots
UGG Roxy
| UGG Roxy Boots
UGG Seline
| UGG Seline Boots
UGG Corinth Wedge
| UGG Corinth Wedge Boots
UGG Liberty
| UGG Liberty Boots
UGG Highkoo
| UGG Highkoo Boots
UGG Knightsbridge
| UGG Knightsbridge Boots
UGG Bomber Jacket
| UGG Bomber Jacket Boots
UGG Adirondack
| UGG Adirondack Boots
UGG Suburb Crochet
| UGG Suburb Crochet Boots
UGG Boots
| UGGs On Sale
| Cheap UGG Boots
UGG Boots
| UGGs On Sale
| Cheap UGG Boots
UGG Boots
| UGGs On Sale
| Cheap UGG Boots
UGG Boots
| UGGs On Sale
| Cheap UGG Boots
UGG Size Guide
| UGG Boots
| UGGs On Sale
MBT Shoes
MBT Mens Shoes
| MBT Fumba Shoes
| MBT Safiri Shoes
| MBT Shuguli Shoes
| MBT Tembea Shoes
| MBT Chapa Shoes
| MBT Karani Shoes
| MBT Moto GORE-TEX Shoes
| MBT Sport 2 Shoes
| MBT Tariki Shoes
| MBT Fanaka GTX Shoes
MBT Womens Shoes
| MBT Maliza Shoes
| MBT Tunisha Shoes
| MBT Voi Shoes
| MBT Barabara Shoes
| MBT Boost Shoes
| MBT Changa Shoes
| MBT Chapa Shoes
| MBT Fora Shoes
| MBT Kaya Shoes
| MBT Lami Shoes
| MBT M.Walk Shoes
| MBT Sapatu Shoes
| MBT Tataga Shoes
MBT Shoes
| Discount MBT
Tiffany
| Tiffany Necklaces
| Tiffany Jewellery
Please believe us , we will use passionate service attitude to receive you , until you buy satisfied goods.
|
|
|
|
