frank miller

[Michael F]

Ian,

Not resignation, just changing targets; politiicians and us as a
collective whole.  Politicians make the laws, and our lifestyle have
grown so materially indulgent that we don't know up from down, forward
from backward.  If we don't readjust or daily livestyles it doesn't
matter who we march on or sit-in on.

Joe,

Maybe, my reasoning is "weak" in your estimation, but at least it is
reason, unlike your personal attacks.  A defense of Frank Miller and
others who question these OWS folks is necessary.  It seems to me as
if you are questioning nothing and only subscribing to what a weakly
fashioned, supposedly radical group is selling.  Unfortunately, your
desire to attack "me" and not my account of the situation has
prevented us from having any good disucussion.  I'll assume that as a
listserv you guys know each other.  Here's my intro.  I am a
registered democrat, 34 year old white male middle school ELA teacher
in the East Bay with a girlfriend who teaches Spec. Ed.(no kids).  I
also coach football and basketball, when not doing that I tutor
intervention reading level students at my middle school.  I sit in on
my upper level Lit and Philosophy courses at UC Berk and have
published some pieces from time-to-time.  Why my background effects my
"reason" or "contribution" to discussion, I have no idea.  But, for
some reason attacking each other is what is done around here.  I only
jumped in on this dialogue to defend Frank Miller with reason, rather
than ideology.  By the way, I am not a Struassian, but I have read and
confronted him, unlike most of media pundints who attempt to demonize
him.

As for my disrespectful tone, the OWS folks have caused property
damage and are hurting the regions that need the most help.  I've been
seeing with my own eyes for the past few weeks.

Mike

On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 4:47 PM, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:
> Correction.
> On Nov 19, 2011, at 12:14 PM, Joseph Tracy wrote:
>
>> Point taken.  This one is too personal and too much a reflection of the bad taste it addresses in kind.. I'll try.
> I'm afraid I am unable to follow through with a less confrontational tone.  My intent is not to berate or censor a person but to honestly confront  what I regard as weak arguments and a disrespectful tone.
>>  I will, however continue to nourish my folkloristic affection for the movement which with all its weakness is the only thing I see willing to challenge the non-folkloristic and deadly grip of corporate capitalism.
>> On Nov 19, 2011, at 6:41 AM, Kai Frederik Lorentzen wrote:
> Rather I would say OWS is the only thing which has broken through the media control of ideas to challenge...  Many others have been willing and more articulate but have been mostly ignored.
>>
>>>
>>> Could you please stop this ad hominem nonsense? As much as you have the right to nourish your folkloristic affection for the movement, as much others have the right to criticize it.
> I respect, welcome and understand your criticism. I seem to have failed to achieve a complete neutrality of tone but am trying to proceed mindfully.
>>>
>>> On 19.11.2011 06:58, Joseph Tracy wrote:
>>>> ... Martin Luther King was just looking to get media attention. 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? 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.
>
>