frank miller

[Joseph Tracy]

I appreciate you telling something about yourself and I agree with some of what you are saying. We do need to adjust our daily lifestyles to collectively bring down fossil fuel use, to grow food locally, to be more creatively self reliant, to create more friendly peaceable communities.  But all of that will make little difference if there is not serious political change in the direction  and structure of national and global politics and economics . The power and will of fossil fuel, Medical, mining, financial industries and war industries has shown no regard for human justice or the health of the biosphere. They own the political process in the US. You can see their tracks in the Iraq war, the gulf oil spill, the financial fraud, and unchecked global warming and a long history environmental desecration and bloody coups and wars. There is no meaningful opposition to their control of both parties. Occupy wall street is an attempt to set an example of public resistance to this situation. It is part of a long history of public demonstration and non-violent resistance which has over many years been a key part of creating and maintaing the post colonial, post WW2 democratic middle class societies in much of the world and of the inclusion of women and minorities as full citizens. Such demonstrations are continuing to move things in that direction now in Islamic nations.  

Personal " attacks".  Nobody in this discussion has literally attacked anyone else. The attack word is overblown..What we are talking about  would more accurately be called  personal criricism. From my POV it starts with your characterizing a movement of thousands of people with blanket phrases like" just people crying and wallowing, and making the lives of many hardworking lower and middle class Americans that much more difficult.", "the OWS folks, like little kiddies, are drawing attention to their selves and not an "issue", "their plan is not even half-baked, its foolish and silly.", "Occupy folks are just looking to get media attention, which is what there true goal is... attention." And all of this in defense of Frank Miller's hateful statement on OWS.  

Well I happen to know several occupiers and your description is a set of loaded personal criticisms that pretends to see others motives and is offensive and wrong.  I questioned your motives and your qualification to make these judgements, letting you know how it feels to be the object of such personally pointed tactics.  Not so pleasant. Neither do I like phrases like "they are the product of a lack of conceptual thinking and speak more about the spitter rather than the target" no "ad Hominem" there? How about your description of Naomi Klein as not a real thinker? Not a personal insult? Have you read The Shock Doctrine?  Are you really sure this constitutes  reason, not a"personal attack". People get defensive for different reasons; personal  and political connections to OWS for me, perhaps your admiration for Frank MIller and your offense at the ideas of people like Moore or Klein. Its part of the baggage that often comes with a passion for ideas.

Maybe we could both agree to try for greater civility and to focus on ideas and arguments, and avoid personal criticism. 

On Nov 19, 2011, at 8:56 PM, Michael F wrote:

> 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.
>> 
>>