frank miller
Michael Bailey
michael.lee.bailey at gmail.com
Sun Nov 20 17:11:23 CST 2011
Ian Livingston wrote:
> Ah, I guess I misinterpreted your statements: "As for blaming the
> banks, like us, they are economic free-agents,
> willing to do what they like with their money. In a democracy should
> a gov't regulate their behavior? We get mad when they regulate our
> behavior."
a) I don't actually get mad when somebody regulates my behavior.
If there's a persuasive rationale, I'm apt to go along and to appreciate it.
Case in point: traffic laws. I think most people agree with the
general principle...
b) the banks lobbied for, and got, relaxation of regulation based on
the (insidious and fallacious) notion that business was automatically
good and unshackling it would only lead to good things. This idea is
contradicted by experience, but even a non-rigorous thought experiment
yields a model that produces unsavory results. The classic "neighbor
who burns tires in his backyard" is not soluble by the free market -
is it? If so, how?
c) it isn't "their" money, really...it's their depositors' money. And
*hellz* no, they shouldn't be allowed to do anything they want with
it.
These sound to me like claims that the banks are to be
> treated as individuals with the same rights and needs as citizens. I
> thought your closing remark was a statement that individuals, and
> banks as individuals, experienced the same progressive needs for
> mythic structures. My error.
>
> While I agree with you that Campbell (as a fellow of the Jungian
> school of thought which also includes Frye and Eliade) encourages
> personal individuation as a factor of integration, I reserve my
> agreement to that point. The individual does not function strictly
> individually from the environment, but as an inseparable part of it.
> The current popular movements that have arisen in response to our
> contemporary political disappointments seem to me to reflect just that
> fact. Individuals recognize that the social environment is
> dysfunctional and are speaking up to address that dysfunction. It
> seems likely that the protests, both right and left, are evidence that
> subjective reflection and change are already in progress.
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Michael F <mff8785 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> "We need to
>> change ourselves instead of looking outward. Excuse me, maybe I've
>> just read too much Joseph Campbell in my earlier years."
>>
>> This is my quote exact. My quotation is concerned with us, not the
>> banks. Modern Westerners are always directing their discontent onto
>> external forces. I side with Joseph Campbell in the fact that man
>> late in the 20th Century needs to look inward(at ourselves), rather
>> than outward(at someone else). I don't understand how any of my
>> comments could be construed as if I am supporting the banks. In a
>> democracy they are moral free-agents as our we, the citizens. Placing
>> blame on others is what we do, there is danger in us doing this.
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Ian Livingston
>> <igrlivingston at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Mike, I see you cite Joseph Campbell as support for your argument that
>>> banks get unfair treatment from the OWS. I find that remarkable. Do
>>> banks really share a subjective egoic mythos that helps them
>>> personally progress toward individuation? Do we who oppose corporate
>>> greed truly disenfranchise the banks in their struggle for life,
>>> liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? I must reassess my
>>> understanding of capitalism, I see--and my understanding of
>>> mythography and of Jungian psychology, as well as my notion of what
>>> constitutes "life."
>>>
>>> And, given my understanding of how the gov't works, I cannot too
>>> readily give credit to reports of the misbehavior of fringe elements
>>> attached to the OWS without considering whether those actions might be
>>> the work of agents provocateurs.
>>>
>>> I will not call the banks and corporations evil. I think, however,
>>> that their structures encourage thought and behavior disregardful of
>>> the general good of the citizens of the nations in which those
>>> entities prosper so pornographically. I do think the banks ought to
>>> forgive the excessive interest charged on illegal and deceptive loans,
>>> as I also believe they should reduce their interest rates across the
>>> board to reflect a friendlier relationship with their customers,
>>> rather than insisting they cannot function in a capitalist society
>>> without seizing every cent they can get by whatever means they can get
>>> it.
>>>
>>> I sensed frustration even from the banker and teller who helped me
>>> close my account at Wells Fargo because they initiated a new policy
>>> charging us unemployed citizens additional monthly charges because we
>>> cannot find work to pay enough to keep our balances high enough to
>>> serve their employers' desires. The banker, in response to my
>>> statement that I really wished I did not have to close my account,
>>> said something to the effect of well, we may not even be here when all
>>> this is over. I dismissed his statement at the time as an attempt at
>>> amelioration, but now I think he was really looking at the exodus from
>>> the big banks as symptomatic of more than just a protest movement
>>> favoring reform.
>>>
>>> Having lived much of my adult life off the grid and being in
>>> possession of less than a full-size pickup load of physical
>>> property--primarily tools and books--I think I can speak as someone
>>> who has committed to a lifestyle mostly scornful of the trappings of
>>> wealth in our society. I do not think everyone should live as I do. I
>>> think cities are important and help keep people from trampling the
>>> landscape unnecessarily. I do think cities, as municipal organizations
>>> of individuals seeking to find ways of cooperation in limited spaces,
>>> should look for the most efficient, rather than the most profitable
>>> means of encouraging that cooperation. Partial divestment from big
>>> capital would only help local businesses. International trade is
>>> enormously profitable and helpful to the nation as a whole, but is
>>> focused on economic profit rather than effectiveness. Those two cannot
>>> be equated. People need to thrive, and the exclusivity of contemporary
>>> capitalism reduces individual human needs to their most primitive
>>> basics rather than raising those needs to higher potentials. Reform is
>>> necessary. People know it now, largely thanks to the recent emergence
>>> of the voices of discontent. Tea Party or OWS, the people are speaking
>>> out, and that is a good thing, even if a few windows get broken and
>>> someone pees in the alley. Such minor infractions seem vastly
>>> preferable to full-scale violent revolt, which is not out of the
>>> question if the established power elite continues to disregard and
>>> demean its critics.
>>>
>>> On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 9:23 AM, Michael F <mff8785 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I've been quick to check out the various media outlets before I jump
>>>> to quick to a conclusion on the character of the OWS folks. Right
>>>> wing media outlets, especially the NYPost are reporting the protestors
>>>> staying in $700 a night hotels and eating meals at posh restaruantss.
>>>> Many of the Left wing media outlets are portraying them as prophets in
>>>> some lights. I think both portrayals are pretty foolish. However, in
>>>> my backyard there has been vandalism of pubic property and direct
>>>> threats to smaller business owners from OWS folks. This has me angry.
>>>>
>>>> As for blaming the banks, like us, they are economic free-agents,
>>>> willing to do what they like with their money. In a democracy should
>>>> a gov't regulate their behavior? We get mad when they regulate our
>>>> behavior. Banks can do what they want, I just get angry when the
>>>> gov't plays ball with them, favoring them rather than with "us".
>>>> There should be a balance and this is lacking. When I say "playing
>>>> ball" with us, I don't mean the gov't forcing the banks to lower our
>>>> mortagages or write of our debt.
>>>>
>>>> I understand Frank Miller's commentary. What we are saying is:
>>>>
>>>> "we can do what we want if you live in our democracy, unless you are
>>>> a corporation or a bank. The gov't has to listen to us, not them. The
>>>> banks and corporations are evil."
>>>>
>>>> This ethos runs contradictory to democracy. European Enlightenment
>>>> and Post-Enlightenment thinkers warned us against this. We need to
>>>> change ourselves instead of looking outward. Excuse me, maybe I've
>>>> just read too much Joseph Campbell in my earlier years.
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Paul Mackin <mackin.paul at verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/20/2011 11:42 AM, kelber at mindspring.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm also confused by the statement: "just people crying and wallowing, and
>>>>>> making the lives of many hardworking lower and middle class Americans that
>>>>>> much more difficult."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've seen site-fuls of construction workers stand up and cheer and
>>>>>> fist-pump as OWS marchers went by. I've seen kitchen-workers come out and
>>>>>> applaud, and retail clerks and cab drivers and truck drivers. Unions
>>>>>> representing service employees and pilots and teachers and nurses have been
>>>>>> out in full force, marching and lending meeting spaces to the movement.
>>>>>> Obviously, no has benefitted more from the Occupy movement than the police,
>>>>>> who are getting hefty overtime checks - because of decisions made by Mayors,
>>>>>> not marchers. The officer who arrested me whispered that he supported what
>>>>>> we were doing. He said he was struggling to make his mortgage payments and
>>>>>> had lots of unemployed people in his family. Even the sadistic security
>>>>>> guards at the jail said they agreed with what we were doing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lots of people have drawn comparisons between OWS and the Tea Party
>>>>>> movement. Their members have no love for each other, but they are, in fact,
>>>>>> two wings of the same movement. It's the movement that was born when first
>>>>>> Bush, then Obama and a majority of Congress supported bailing out the banks
>>>>>> even though the polls said that the majority of Americans were opposed to
>>>>>> this. The Tea Party blames the government, OWS blames the banks, but
>>>>>> they're united in their outrage.
>>>>>
>>>>> But Laura, wasn't it good that all necessary steps were taken to keep the
>>>>> financial system from collapsing?
>>>>>
>>>>> In a complex society you can't cripple one of its component parts without
>>>>> causing great harm to just about everybody.
>>>>>
>>>>> Innocent and guilty alike.
>>>>>
>>>>> P
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Laura
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: Joseph Tracy<brook7 at sover.net>
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> "Less than any man have I excuse for prejudice; and I feel for all
>>> creeds the warm sympathy of one who has come to learn that even the
>>> trust in reason is a precarious faith, and that we are all fragments
>>> of darkness groping for the sun. I know no more about the ultimates
>>> than the simplest urchin in the streets." -- Will Durant
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> "Less than any man have I excuse for prejudice; and I feel for all
> creeds the warm sympathy of one who has come to learn that even the
> trust in reason is a precarious faith, and that we are all fragments
> of darkness groping for the sun. I know no more about the ultimates
> than the simplest urchin in the streets." -- Will Durant
>
More information about the Pynchon-l
mailing list