frank miller

[Michael F]

The ad-hominem attacks don't bother me, they are the product of a lack
of conceptual thinking and speak more about the spitter rather than
the target.  CNN/Foxnews modes of dialectic argumentation don't bother
me.

"What qualifies you to evaluate the motives of thousands of people
risking arrest and beating, and willing to leave the comforts of
indoor living all in order to address the hypocrisy and failure of a
society throwing off its constitutional and historic values for
neo-feudalist power arrangements?"

I have similar aims as most rational Americans, who are being done
wrong by our politicians and corporate-driven privateers, however, I
fear that it is irreversible and comes along with our Modern type of
democracy and capitalism(I don't think socialism or communism can cure
top-level governing irresponsibility either).  With that being said, I
am not a Christian:  I don't blindly leap head-first into "causes"
that have been constructed by other people.  The lists of names you
mentioned above are not even thinkers, but just media-selected
prophets of material.  I love the way Naomi Klein and Michael Moore
gain political cache by ripping the very system that has benefitted
them so tremendously.  Listening to them is kind of like reading
Derrida, they want to make a point, but they are attempting to destroy
the system that allows them to communicate and have a "position" of
visilbilty and celebrity; kind of like talking on the phone for an
hour or so, but pulling out the chord 10 minutes after the
conversation started.  If all these folks are giving their lives and
sacrificing their comforting Modern luxuries, that's fine- but it
doesn't mean they are going about it the proper way or doing it
efficiently.  Thousands of Germans giving up their prior religious and
political traditions for Nazism didn't justify it for those who knew
better.


"Could it be Michael F who feels insecure and tries to get attention
by attacking Berkeley philosophy professors and a movement that has
succeeded in initiating a much needed nationwide conversation about
the tension between democracy and Friedman style capitalism?"

I will never hesitate to comment on the absurdity of teaching
undergrads Heidegger.   As well, these guys consider themselves
experts in 20th Century German philosophy, without commenting on the
likes of Carl Schmidt and Leo Strauss and other thinkers who must be
addressed.

"If you have tactical ideas which are better than those you see being
used, then maybe you should get involved and offer your ideas. Instead
of mocking David, how about Michael F  squaring off against Goliath?
By the way, precise argument and overall scholastic credibility might
be helped by mastering the difference between the possessive pronoun
and the adverb spelling of their/there."

Grammar?  I figure this to be a chat room, and if my writing, which
immitates our sloppy oral language comes out jumbled, I apologize.  If
it is a concern to you, I'll send you all my future writings for
editing.  Interesting, how you use Old Testament metaphors, I figured
the movement was "secular" and religious and secular metaphor break
down after further exploration, even you know this, right?  But, David
and Goliath, I don't consider it to be a "masses" vs. "elites" issue,
which will allow me to make my next point and actually relate to the
title of this thread.  The masses can be just as corrupt as the
masses, and this has happend throughout history as much as elites
being corrupted.

Frank Miller's narratives from his earlier writings involving
Wolverine up through Batman and finishing with Sin CIty and 300 mark
the difference between Ancient (Traditional or Pre-Modern) virtue vs.
Modern Social Contract Theories.  Of course many Ancient, Traditional,
or Pre-Modern societies have many differing ideas concerning
government and death.  Nietzsche was the first Modern thinker to exist
inside our Modern ethos of Philosophy to  step outside recognize the
difference.  Unfortunately, as Modern folks, its hard for us to step
back or return to a classical mode of existence, and of course Frank
Miller knows this.  However, I tend to think Miller's narratives can
be healthy if they motivate us to step back and crawl backward like
Nietzsche's "crab" and look inward at ourselves, rather than outward
to governing bodies.  So, I'll respond with a "no", a political
revolution will change nothing for the better.  I would suggest, like
Frank Miller's Spartans, that we a, such a highly educated, smart
citizenry, would do best to look inward at this point and do what we
can in our everday lives to stop these politicians and ceo's from
incestuously raping us.   Batman and the Spartans know how faulty
govening bodies can be, so instead of rebelling or bringing them down
in order to implant another faulty governing body, they get
knowledgable about the problem and possible solutions and make change
by starting with their daily lives (Batman making personal sacrifices
and the Spartans marching off to fight evil without the support of
their governing bodies).  It has to start with the citizenry making
everyday changes before changes up top can occur.  Getting angry and
living in the streets and cause damage doesn't change much.

The major problem: Modern democratic people cling to life, much more
than a virtuous soldier would.

The Spartans and other great Traditional bodies possessed an "its a
great day to die" attitude toward their virtues and way of life.  Here
in Western Societies, we have a "we want to have our cake and
eat-it-too attitude".  Moore, Klien, and the OWS protestors have the
"cake" attitude, we want change, but "not at our expense."  No
sacrifices are being made, we are protesting so we don't have to make
any future sacrifices- not a great state of affairs.

Mike F.

On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Michael Bailey
<michael.lee.bailey at gmail.com> wrote:
> Joseph, thanks for the counter-list!  I enjoy reading your viewpoint,
> which I think of as idealist, activist and compassionate and also
> aroused to anger through compassion...
>
> Just to make sure you distinguish, though, the list was mine, Michael
> B's (a person somewhat supportive in a small way to OWS and similar
> causes, and a bleeding heart liberal) - my caveats are those of a
> (mostly) sympathizer.  I believe in (most of) the New Deal, I think
> Social Security and Medicare are worth keeping, I think the Bush tax
> cuts proved that tax cuts don't help, I favor Greg Palast over Milton
> Friedman and I favor Michael Hudson's analysis over Austrian
> economics...I think Howard Roark was kind of a dork...
>
> Michael F - I think you have stronger philosophical objections to the
> OWS movement than mine, and probably different stances on the issues
> above as well as others.  I enjoy reading what I tend to think of as
> your libertarian views...
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 11:45 PM, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:
>
>> now to your list
>> a) without a single leader many articulate leaders  and artists have been embraced and participated eloquently: Naomi Klein, Chris Hedges, Michael Moore, Arundhati Roy, Ry Cooder, Russel Simmons, SEIU leader Mary Henry, Cornel West, Asmaa Mahfouz (key leader of Tahrir square revolution), and many, many new voices powerfully addressing the gap between those with and without a say in their lives.
>> b) but time after time it is the unconstitutional behavior and excessive force of "authorities"that is being revealed in glaring and unflattering light. Neverthless these young people feel wiser , more peaceful, and more eager to work with the cops and others while not giving up their occupation of public space, than those led by more radical elements in the 60's.  I try to follow quaker peace methods( not that great at it), but watching the film Burma vj has shaken my faith in the power of non-violent resistance pretty deeply. We are far from a place where violence makes any sense,and iam the first to argue that a violentrevolution tends to produce violent authoritarian leaders, but sometimes a bully needs to learn the hard way and people will protect themselves.
>> c)No doubt this is very tough and the reason I am not there though I have been arrested  this year with vets for peace. One can also be in a supporting role and there has been much support. The key is that paying this price has produced a huge wave of support, disruption of the status quo, and exposure of the widespread discontent with the Power of Wall street and purchase of democracy. It's a creative tactic and it seems to be unleashing new creative tactics and provoking dissenters to be creative.
>> d)Not sure I buy the idea that those who stayed in the system had the largest effect .  Could be an interesting topic to pursue? Also  those who did have an effect usually did not scoff at the 60s revolution but took it to wherever they were from Dan Ellsberg to Angela Davis, to Gloria Steinem, to Thomas Pynchon.
>>
>> One of the things I like about OWS is the importance of self education. They have a library, assemblies, speakers, and these are important. Lot of photos of young adults reading.
>>
>> My thoughts on OWS, 350.org, Democracy Now, Alternet, Michael Moore, the various components of the world wide anti-war and human justice movement. THIS IS IT. THIS IS WHAT YOU REALLY HAVE TO CHANGE DIRECTION . This is the hope that Obama promised but failed to occupy. Both parties work for international corporate interests and the Military. The differences are trivial. THIS IS THE REMNANTS OF DEMOCRACY IN THE US.
>>
>> On Nov 18, 2011, at 4:53 PM, Michael Bailey wrote:
>>
>