What a refreshing article by Matt Taibbi. Not because I agree with
his comments, but because he is reporting on a very endangered
species, an honest politician.
Agree or disagree with Senator Bernie Sanders, but it doesn't take
long to realize that he is speaking from his heart, and not from the
purse of Corporate Constituents.
Most Fridays I make a point to tune on the Thom Hartman radio program
so I can share an hour with Bernie Sanders. Too bad that his fellow
politicians in congress don't listen, too. His observations are
usually spot on.
The one thing for certain, I can now look forward to being involved in
the presidential election. At least in the primary. I had no stomach
for putting my name beside Hillary Clinton or anyone put up by the
Republicans. But I plan to do all I can to support Sanders. Can he
win? Many of my friends tell me not to waste my vote or my energy.
But they are wrong...again. This is not about Bernie winning or
losing, as much as it is in exposing Americans to something we get
very little of. Truth! And Truth has the ability to open eyes, to
wiggle into the brain and raise questions.
But can Bernie overcome so many years of our minds being dulled and
polluted? I suppose if I were a Believer, I'd say that miracles do
happen. But to simply pray for a miracle is exactly what we do not
need. If Bernie has any chance at all, it will only come through the
efforts of thousands of people contacting and convincing thousands of
other people. And if by some chance Bernie is swept into the office,
it will only matter if all of us are ready to provide him support and
guidance.
Can it happen? Johna did come out of the whales belly. Moses did
part the Red Sea. And Jesus turned the water into wine. A glass of
which I could use right now.
Go Bernie!!!
Carl Jarvis
On 4/30/15, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> Taibbi writes: "He is the rarest of Washington animals, a completely honest
> person."
>
> Sen. Bernie Sanders. (photo: Win McNamee/Getty)
>
>
> Give 'Em Hell, Bernie
> By Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone
> 29 April 15
>
> Many years ago I pitched a magazine editor on a story about Bernie Sanders,
> then a congressman from Vermont, who'd agreed to something extraordinary -
> he agreed to let me, a reporter, stick next to him without restrictions
> over
> the course of a month in congress.
> "People need to know how this place works. It's absurd," he'd said. (Bernie
> often uses the word absurd, his Brooklyn roots coming through in his
> pronunciation - ob-zert.)
> Bernie wasn't quite so famous at the time and the editor scratched his
> head.
> "Bernie Sanders," he said. "That's the one who cares, right?"
> "Right, that's the guy," I said.
> I got the go-ahead and the resulting story was a wild journey through the
> tortuous bureaucratic maze of our national legislature. I didn't write this
> at the time, but I was struck every day by what a strange and interesting
> figure Sanders was.
> Many of the battles he brought me along to witness, he lost. And no normal
> politician would be comfortable with the optics of bringing a Rolling Stone
> reporter to a Rules Committee hearing.
> But Sanders genuinely, sincerely, does not care about optics. He is the
> rarest of Washington animals, a completely honest person. If he's motivated
> by anything other than a desire to use his influence to protect people who
> can't protect themselves, I've never seen it. Bernie Sanders is the kind of
> person who goes to bed at night thinking about how to increase the
> heating-oil aid program for the poor.
> This is why his entrance into the 2016 presidential race is a great thing
> and not a mere footnote to the inevitable coronation of Hillary Clinton as
> the Democratic nominee. If the press is smart enough to grasp it, his
> entrance into the race makes for a profound storyline that could force all
> of us to ask some very uncomfortable questions.
> Here's the thing: Sanders is a politician whose power base is derived
> almost
> entirely from the people of the state of Vermont, where he is personally
> known to a surprisingly enormous percentage of voters.
> His chief opponents in the race to the White House, meanwhile, derive their
> power primarily from corporate and financial interests. That doesn't make
> them bad people or even bad candidates necessarily, but it's a fact that
> the
> Beltway-media cognoscenti who decide these things make access to money the
> primary factor in determining whether or not a presidential aspirant is
> "viable" or "credible." Here's how the Wall Street Journal put it in their
> story about Sanders (emphasis mine):
> It is unclear how much money Mr. Sanders expects to raise, or what he
> thinks
> he needs to run a credible race. Mr. Sanders raised about $7 million for
> his
> last re-election in Vermont, a small state. Sums needed to run nationally
> are far larger.
> The Washington/national press has trained all of us to worry about these
> questions of financing on behalf of candidates even at such an early stage
> of a race as this.
> In this manner we're conditioned to believe that the candidate who has the
> early assent of a handful of executives on Wall Street and in Hollywood and
> Silicon Valley is the "serious" politician, while the one who is merely the
> favorite of large numbers of human beings is an irritating novelty act
> whose
> only possible goal could be to cut into the numbers of the real players.
> Sanders offers an implicit challenge to the current system of national
> electoral politics. With rare exceptions, campaign season is a time when
> the
> backroom favorites of financial interests are marketed to the population.
> Weighed down by highly regressive policy intentions, these candidates need
> huge laboratories of focus groups and image consultants to guide them as
> they grope around for a few lines they can use to sell themselves to
> regular
> working people.
> Sanders on the other hand has no constituency among the monied crowd.
> "Billionaires do not flock to my campaign," he quipped. So what his race is
> about is the reverse of the usual process: he'll be marketing the interests
> of regular people to the gatekeeping Washington press, in the hope that
> they
> will give his ideas a fair shot.
> It's a little-known fact, but we reporters could successfully sell Sanders
> or Elizabeth Warren or any other populist candidate as a serious contender
> for the White House if we wanted to. Hell, we told Americans it was okay to
> vote for George Bush, a man who moves his lips when he reads.
> But the lapdog mentality is deeply ingrained and most Beltway scribes
> prefer
> to wait for a signal from above before they agree to take anyone not
> sitting
> atop a mountain of cash seriously.
> Thus this whole question of "seriousness" - which will dominate coverage of
> the Sanders campaign - should really be read as a profound indictment of
> our
> political system, which is now so openly an oligarchy that any politician
> who doesn't have the blessing of the bosses is marginalized before he or
> she
> steps into the ring.
> I remember the first time I was sold on Bernie Sanders as a politician. He
> was in his congressional office and he was ranting about the fact that many
> of the manufacturing and financial companies who asked him and other
> members
> of congress for tax breaks and aid were also in the business of moving
> American jobs overseas to places like China.
> Sanders spent years trying to drum up support for a simple measure that
> would force any company that came to Washington asking for handouts to
> promise they wouldn't turn around and ship jobs to China or India.
> That didn't seem like a lot to ask, but his fellow members treated him like
> he was asking for a repeal of the free enterprise system. This issue drove
> Sanders crazy. Again showing his Brooklyn roots, Bernie gets genuinely mad
> about these things. While some pols are kept up at night worrying about the
> future profitability of gazillionaire banks, Sanders seethes over the many
> obvious wrongs that get smoothed over and covered up at his place of work.
> That saltiness, I'm almost sure of it, is what drove him into this race. He
> just can't sit by and watch the things that go on, go on. That's not who he
> is.
> When I first met Bernie Sanders, I'd just spent over a decade living in
> formerly communist Russia. The word "socialist" therefore had highly
> negative connotations for me, to the point where I didn't even like to say
> it out loud.
> But Bernie Sanders is not Bukharin or Trotsky. His concept of "Democratic
> Socialism" as I've come to understand it over the years is that an elected
> government should occasionally step in and offer an objection or two toward
> our progress to undisguised oligarchy. Or, as in the case of not giving tax
> breaks to companies who move factories overseas, our government should at
> least not finance the disappearance of the middle class.
> Maybe that does qualify as radical and unserious politics in our day and
> age. If that's the case, we should at least admit how much trouble we're
> in.
> Congratulations, Bernie. Good luck and give 'em hell.
> Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not
> valid.
>
> Sen. Bernie Sanders. (photo: Win McNamee/Getty)
> http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/give-em-hell-bernie-20150429http:/
> /www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/give-em-hell-bernie-20150429
> Give 'Em Hell, Bernie
> By Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone
> 29 April 15
> any years ago I pitched a magazine editor on a story about Bernie Sanders,
> then a congressman from Vermont, who'd agreed to something extraordinary -
> he agreed to let me, a reporter, stick next to him without restrictions
> over
> the course of a month in congress.
> "People need to know how this place works. It's absurd," he'd said. (Bernie
> often uses the word absurd, his Brooklyn roots coming through in his
> pronunciation - ob-zert.)
> Bernie wasn't quite so famous at the time and the editor scratched his
> head.
> "Bernie Sanders," he said. "That's the one who cares, right?"
> "Right, that's the guy," I said.
> I got the go-ahead and the resulting story was a wild journey through the
> tortuous bureaucratic maze of our national legislature. I didn't write this
> at the time, but I was struck every day by what a strange and interesting
> figure Sanders was.
> Many of the battles he brought me along to witness, he lost. And no normal
> politician would be comfortable with the optics of bringing a Rolling Stone
> reporter to a Rules Committee hearing.
> But Sanders genuinely, sincerely, does not care about optics. He is the
> rarest of Washington animals, a completely honest person. If he's motivated
> by anything other than a desire to use his influence to protect people who
> can't protect themselves, I've never seen it. Bernie Sanders is the kind of
> person who goes to bed at night thinking about how to increase the
> heating-oil aid program for the poor.
> This is why his entrance into the 2016 presidential race is a great thing
> and not a mere footnote to the inevitable coronation of Hillary Clinton as
> the Democratic nominee. If the press is smart enough to grasp it, his
> entrance into the race makes for a profound storyline that could force all
> of us to ask some very uncomfortable questions.
> Here's the thing: Sanders is a politician whose power base is derived
> almost
> entirely from the people of the state of Vermont, where he is personally
> known to a surprisingly enormous percentage of voters.
> His chief opponents in the race to the White House, meanwhile, derive their
> power primarily from corporate and financial interests. That doesn't make
> them bad people or even bad candidates necessarily, but it's a fact that
> the
> Beltway-media cognoscenti who decide these things make access to money the
> primary factor in determining whether or not a presidential aspirant is
> "viable" or "credible." Here's how the Wall Street Journal put it in their
> story about Sanders (emphasis mine):
> It is unclear how much money Mr. Sanders expects to raise, or what he
> thinks
> he needs to run a credible race. Mr. Sanders raised about $7 million for
> his
> last re-election in Vermont, a small state. Sums needed to run nationally
> are far larger.
> The Washington/national press has trained all of us to worry about these
> questions of financing on behalf of candidates even at such an early stage
> of a race as this.
> In this manner we're conditioned to believe that the candidate who has the
> early assent of a handful of executives on Wall Street and in Hollywood and
> Silicon Valley is the "serious" politician, while the one who is merely the
> favorite of large numbers of human beings is an irritating novelty act
> whose
> only possible goal could be to cut into the numbers of the real players.
> Sanders offers an implicit challenge to the current system of national
> electoral politics. With rare exceptions, campaign season is a time when
> the
> backroom favorites of financial interests are marketed to the population.
> Weighed down by highly regressive policy intentions, these candidates need
> huge laboratories of focus groups and image consultants to guide them as
> they grope around for a few lines they can use to sell themselves to
> regular
> working people.
> Sanders on the other hand has no constituency among the monied crowd.
> "Billionaires do not flock to my campaign," he quipped. So what his race is
> about is the reverse of the usual process: he'll be marketing the interests
> of regular people to the gatekeeping Washington press, in the hope that
> they
> will give his ideas a fair shot.
> It's a little-known fact, but we reporters could successfully sell Sanders
> or Elizabeth Warren or any other populist candidate as a serious contender
> for the White House if we wanted to. Hell, we told Americans it was okay to
> vote for George Bush, a man who moves his lips when he reads.
> But the lapdog mentality is deeply ingrained and most Beltway scribes
> prefer
> to wait for a signal from above before they agree to take anyone not
> sitting
> atop a mountain of cash seriously.
> Thus this whole question of "seriousness" - which will dominate coverage of
> the Sanders campaign - should really be read as a profound indictment of
> our
> political system, which is now so openly an oligarchy that any politician
> who doesn't have the blessing of the bosses is marginalized before he or
> she
> steps into the ring.
> I remember the first time I was sold on Bernie Sanders as a politician. He
> was in his congressional office and he was ranting about the fact that many
> of the manufacturing and financial companies who asked him and other
> members
> of congress for tax breaks and aid were also in the business of moving
> American jobs overseas to places like China.
> Sanders spent years trying to drum up support for a simple measure that
> would force any company that came to Washington asking for handouts to
> promise they wouldn't turn around and ship jobs to China or India.
> That didn't seem like a lot to ask, but his fellow members treated him like
> he was asking for a repeal of the free enterprise system. This issue drove
> Sanders crazy. Again showing his Brooklyn roots, Bernie gets genuinely mad
> about these things. While some pols are kept up at night worrying about the
> future profitability of gazillionaire banks, Sanders seethes over the many
> obvious wrongs that get smoothed over and covered up at his place of work.
> That saltiness, I'm almost sure of it, is what drove him into this race. He
> just can't sit by and watch the things that go on, go on. That's not who he
> is.
> When I first met Bernie Sanders, I'd just spent over a decade living in
> formerly communist Russia. The word "socialist" therefore had highly
> negative connotations for me, to the point where I didn't even like to say
> it out loud.
> But Bernie Sanders is not Bukharin or Trotsky. His concept of "Democratic
> Socialism" as I've come to understand it over the years is that an elected
> government should occasionally step in and offer an objection or two toward
> our progress to undisguised oligarchy. Or, as in the case of not giving tax
> breaks to companies who move factories overseas, our government should at
> least not finance the disappearance of the middle class.
> Maybe that does qualify as radical and unserious politics in our day and
> age. If that's the case, we should at least admit how much trouble we're
> in.
> Congratulations, Bernie. Good luck and give 'em hell.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Blind-Democracy mailing list
> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>
Thursday, April 30, 2015
Wednesday, April 29, 2015
Another world is possible -- 10 reasons why socialism is the only way forward
All good points. Especially I would stress the following:
"The transition to socialism will not happen overnight, nor is it a
given that when people finally get frustrated enough with capitalism,
that they would
automatically turn to socialism. There is also the threat that they
may move the other way towards fascism."
In fact, if people do not become active and knowledgeable in
participating in their government, Fascism will most certainly take
the front row. We have been trained to be followers, to let others do
it, to hope for some white knight to take up our cause. The easy, and
in the short haul, thing to do is to do nothing and just let events
run their course. But in the long haul this will simply bring us full
circle back to where we are.
Carl Jarvis
On 4/29/15, Roger Loran Bailey <rogerbailey81@aol.com> wrote:
> https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/58839
>
>
> Another world is possible -- 10 reasons why socialism is the only way forward
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Saturday, April 25, 2015
>
> By Murray Taylor & Jacob Andrewartha
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Racism, like sexism and homophobia, is another means by which the ruling
> class divides the working class.
>
> We live in a time of growing inequality between the rich and poor, when
> the environment is being destroyed to the point of threatening our very
> existence, because of a system that prioritises profit. Here are 10
> reasons why socialism is the way forward to solve society's problems.
>
> 1. THE DESTRUCTION OF CLASS DIVISION
>
> Under capitalism, people are divided on the basis of class. There are
> the 1%, who own the wealth and the means to produce wealth, and the rest
> of us, the 99%, who sell their labour to produce profit for the 1%.
>
> Socialism means the elimination of these class barriers and the
> organisation of production and resources to enable all people to live
> fulfilled lives and to ensure environmental sustainability.
>
> 2. REAL PEOPLE-POWERED DEMOCRACY
>
> Democracy under capitalism is an illusion and not a participatory system
> of government. The interests of the 1% are also reflected and reinforced
> in the media over the interests of ordinary people. Politicians answer
> to corporate interests while the bureaucracy, judiciary, police and
> armed forces are unaccountable.
>
> Socialism will allow for a democratic system in which the people
> collectively participate in decision making and have full democratic
> control over the economy.
>
> 3. DEMOCRATIC CONTROL OVER WORKPLACES
>
> Under capitalism, democracy ends at the entrance to the workplace. The
> interests of business owners and their drive for profit take precedence
> over the rights of workers. The recent attempts by the Abbott government
> to take away penalty rates are the latest example of how under
> capitalism the good of the nation is defined by what is good for
> employers but harmful to workers.
>
> Socialism means workers gaining democratic control over their workplaces
> within a framework of democratic control of the economy and the
> prioritisation of human need and environmental sustainability.
>
> 4. AN EQUAL AND FAIR JUSTICE SYSTEM
>
> We are told that we are equal under the law but under the capitalist
> legal system injustice is rampant -- from racial profiling, to deaths in
> custody, to corporations hiding profits to evade tax. The police serve
> as armed guards for capitalist interests rather than as protectors of
> the people.
>
> Under socialism, the elimination of economic divisions in society will
> create an equitable justice system that ensures fairness for all people.
>
> 5. PROMOTING GENDER EQUALITY
>
> The oppression of women originated thousands of years ago with the
> growth of the first hierarchical societies. Repression of female
> sexuality stemmed from men who were powerful enough to accumulate
> property wishing to have known heirs to inherit their wealth and status.
>
> Today, capitalism benefits from the unpaid labour of women in child
> rearing and providing domestic services. Sexism and gender inequality
> are the tools capitalism uses to promote division within the 99%.
> Racism, homophobia and other prejudice-based ideologies function in the
> same way.
>
> Sexism means that all women face multiple forms of oppression -- from
> discrimination in the workplace and lack of equal wages, to ideas of how
> women should dress, talk, behave and generally live, to the constant
> threat of violence on the streets, in social environments and,
> especially, in the home.
>
> Socialism will create the potential to eliminate gender inequality.
> However, millennia of socially ingrained sexism will not automatically
> disappear without a strong feminist consciousness in the socialist
> movement. Without a strong movement for women's rights now, it will be
> difficult to overcome the divisions within the 99% that make challenging
> the power of the 1% impossible.
>
> 6. IMPROVED LGBTI RIGHTS
>
> According to Australian Marriage Equality poll, 64% of Australians
> support same-sex marriage. Dividing Australians on this issue benefits
> the capitalist system by causing distraction.
>
> Denying marriage and adoption rights to the LGBTI community, and
> introducing legislation that actively oppresses the community -- like the
> "religious freedom" legislation that Tasmania is proposing -- is how the
> capitalist system tries to maintain the traditional idea of a nuclear
> family, which is needed to raise the next generation of workers.
>
> Equality is a crucial part of socialism, which is a system that does not
> accommodate restrictions on individual lifestyles or discredit the value
> of one's labour due to gender.
>
> 7. FREE EDUCATION NOT CORPORATE DEGREE FACTORIES
>
> Education under capitalism is a source of class division and is seen as
> an economic asset within our community. Education has become just
> another commodity. The desire to improve human potential through sharing
> knowledge has become another means by which the ruling class can profit
> and control the working class.
>
> Education under socialism would not be profit driven, but would be seen
> as the basic human right to knowledge and to increase our potential
> through knowledge. To this end, education under socialism would be free,
> and those engaged in study would be provided with affordable housing and
> a living wage.
>
> 8. AN END TO RACIST GOVERNMENT POLICIES
>
> The Western Australian government is in the process of shutting down 150
> remote Aboriginal communities, by turning off their power and water,
> because these communities have been deemed unsustainable. At the same
> time the federal government continues to disregard international law by
> detaining refugees in more horrendous circumstances than those they were
> fleeing.
>
> Racism, like sexism and homophobia, is another means by which the ruling
> class divides the working class. We are fed lies by the government and
> Murdoch press until we're afraid of the supposed "floods of refugees".
>
> Socialism promotes solidarity, a way for all oppressed and marginalised
> groups in society to support each other and fight for something better,
> because it is the same system that oppresses us all.
>
> 9. FOR A MORE ENVIRONMENTALLY SUSTAINABLE FUTURE
>
> In the past three decades, half of the Great Barrier Reef has been
> destroyed. Tony Abbott has abolished the renewable energy target and
> attacked many environmental agencies such as the Climate Commission,
> Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the Environmental Defenders Office.
> It is imperative if our planet is to sustain life that we do more than
> just reform and carbon-trading.
>
> A socialist solution would be motivated by preservation and climate
> justice, not profit, and would distribute resources more effectively
> than a profit based system, in which two-thirds of the world's food is
> wasted for profit generation.
>
> 10. PEOPLE-POWERED MEDIA NOT THE MURDOCH PRESS
>
> In Australia, 59% of all newspaper sales are of News Corp-owned
> publications. If you include Fairfax in the mix, 86% of newspaper sales
> go to the two companies.
>
> These are the publications, particularly the Murdoch-owned press, that
> have been accused of using their print media to influence election
> results. It is rare to find Murdoch or Fairfax journalists who are left
> of centre and even rarer to find an article openly promoting socialism
> in the Herald Sun or Courier Mail.
>
> This is why people powered media such as Green Left Weekly is so crucial
> in counteracting the pro-capitalist ideology promoted in the mainstream
> press and offering an alternative to the capitalist system.
>
> How can it be achieved?
>
> The transition to socialism will not happen overnight, nor is it a given
> that when people finally get frustrated enough with capitalism, that
> they would automatically turn to socialism. There is also the threat
> that they may move the other way towards fascism.
>
> The move towards socialism requires grassroots participation of
> activists and passionate individuals working collectively, who believe
> that another world is possible and that, more importantly, the working
> class has the power to build it.
>
> Like the article? Subscribe to Green Left now! You can also like us on
> Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
>
>
>
>
>
> From GLW issue 1050
> Tags: anti-racism
> anti-war
> Climate
> democracy
> education
> human rights
> Resistance Young Socialist Alliance
> revolution
> socialism
> women's liberation
> workers' rights & unions
> youth rights
>
>
> Login or register to post comments
>
>
>
> Australian news
> International news
> Comment & analysis
> Cultural dissent
> GreenLeft TV
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> FEATURED CONTENT
>
>
> International day of protest on May 1 against forced closure of
> Aboriginal communities
>
>
>
>
> Support glw
>
>
> "Congratulations once again to Green Left Weekly. As I've often said
> to people all over the world when they ask what the press is like in
> Australia, 'Mostly owned by Murdoch and mostly unfree'. But I always add
> quickly, 'There is one newspaper that is independent of powerful
> interests and that's Green Left Weekly'."
> John Pilger
>
> Donate securely online - every cent you donate helps us to keep going.
>
>
>
> Recent comments
>
>
> *The refugee debate and disingenuousness
> 1 week 2 days ago
> *Draghi blackmails Greeks
> 2 weeks 2 days ago
> *Universities should be
> 2 weeks 2 days ago
> *Dear comrades, the AWP
> 3 weeks 6 days ago
> *Confirmation of Account by Benny Wenda
> 4 weeks 5 days ago
> *CFMEU
> 4 weeks 5 days ago
> *Errors and inaccurate allegations of Benny Wenda's article
> 4 weeks 6 days ago
> *Indigenous researcher denigrates firestick farming theory
> 5 weeks 4 days ago
> *Drug-related deaths, preventable deaths & Bali duo
> 7 weeks 5 days ago
> *4 more reasons to fight fee deregulation
> 8 weeks 6 days ago
>
>
> Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> More GLW links >>
> Green Left Weekly discussion list
>
>
> Get in touch
>
>
> Don't just get informed, get active! Receive regular emails about GLW &
> progressive events in your area.
>
>
>
>
> Name: *
>
>
> Email: *
>
>
> Phone:
>
>
> Post code:
>
>
>
>
> get connected
>
>
> join us on facebook
>
> follow our tweets
>
> add us to your rss feed
> .
>
>
>
>
> categories australian news
> international
> comment & analysis
> cultural dissent
> our common cause
> letters
> general
>
> general activist calendar
> back issues
> current issue
> why an alternative press?
>
>
>
>
> about GLW - the need for alternative media
>
>
> In these days of growing media concentration, Green Left Weekly is a
> proudly independent voice committed to human and civil rights, global
> peace and environmental sustainability, democracy and equality. By
> printing the news and ideas the mainstream media won't, Green Left
> Weekly exposes the lies and distortions of the power brokers and helps
> us to better understand the world around us.
>
> Green Left Weekly, launched in 1990 by progressive activists to present
> the views excluded by the big business media, is now Australia's leading
> source of local, national and international news, analysis, and
> discussion and debate to strengthen the anti-capitalist movements.
>
> Read more about Green Left Weekly...
>
> _______________________________________________
> Blind-Democracy mailing list
> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
"The transition to socialism will not happen overnight, nor is it a
given that when people finally get frustrated enough with capitalism,
that they would
automatically turn to socialism. There is also the threat that they
may move the other way towards fascism."
In fact, if people do not become active and knowledgeable in
participating in their government, Fascism will most certainly take
the front row. We have been trained to be followers, to let others do
it, to hope for some white knight to take up our cause. The easy, and
in the short haul, thing to do is to do nothing and just let events
run their course. But in the long haul this will simply bring us full
circle back to where we are.
Carl Jarvis
On 4/29/15, Roger Loran Bailey <rogerbailey81@aol.com> wrote:
> https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/58839
>
>
> Another world is possible -- 10 reasons why socialism is the only way forward
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Saturday, April 25, 2015
>
> By Murray Taylor & Jacob Andrewartha
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Racism, like sexism and homophobia, is another means by which the ruling
> class divides the working class.
>
> We live in a time of growing inequality between the rich and poor, when
> the environment is being destroyed to the point of threatening our very
> existence, because of a system that prioritises profit. Here are 10
> reasons why socialism is the way forward to solve society's problems.
>
> 1. THE DESTRUCTION OF CLASS DIVISION
>
> Under capitalism, people are divided on the basis of class. There are
> the 1%, who own the wealth and the means to produce wealth, and the rest
> of us, the 99%, who sell their labour to produce profit for the 1%.
>
> Socialism means the elimination of these class barriers and the
> organisation of production and resources to enable all people to live
> fulfilled lives and to ensure environmental sustainability.
>
> 2. REAL PEOPLE-POWERED DEMOCRACY
>
> Democracy under capitalism is an illusion and not a participatory system
> of government. The interests of the 1% are also reflected and reinforced
> in the media over the interests of ordinary people. Politicians answer
> to corporate interests while the bureaucracy, judiciary, police and
> armed forces are unaccountable.
>
> Socialism will allow for a democratic system in which the people
> collectively participate in decision making and have full democratic
> control over the economy.
>
> 3. DEMOCRATIC CONTROL OVER WORKPLACES
>
> Under capitalism, democracy ends at the entrance to the workplace. The
> interests of business owners and their drive for profit take precedence
> over the rights of workers. The recent attempts by the Abbott government
> to take away penalty rates are the latest example of how under
> capitalism the good of the nation is defined by what is good for
> employers but harmful to workers.
>
> Socialism means workers gaining democratic control over their workplaces
> within a framework of democratic control of the economy and the
> prioritisation of human need and environmental sustainability.
>
> 4. AN EQUAL AND FAIR JUSTICE SYSTEM
>
> We are told that we are equal under the law but under the capitalist
> legal system injustice is rampant -- from racial profiling, to deaths in
> custody, to corporations hiding profits to evade tax. The police serve
> as armed guards for capitalist interests rather than as protectors of
> the people.
>
> Under socialism, the elimination of economic divisions in society will
> create an equitable justice system that ensures fairness for all people.
>
> 5. PROMOTING GENDER EQUALITY
>
> The oppression of women originated thousands of years ago with the
> growth of the first hierarchical societies. Repression of female
> sexuality stemmed from men who were powerful enough to accumulate
> property wishing to have known heirs to inherit their wealth and status.
>
> Today, capitalism benefits from the unpaid labour of women in child
> rearing and providing domestic services. Sexism and gender inequality
> are the tools capitalism uses to promote division within the 99%.
> Racism, homophobia and other prejudice-based ideologies function in the
> same way.
>
> Sexism means that all women face multiple forms of oppression -- from
> discrimination in the workplace and lack of equal wages, to ideas of how
> women should dress, talk, behave and generally live, to the constant
> threat of violence on the streets, in social environments and,
> especially, in the home.
>
> Socialism will create the potential to eliminate gender inequality.
> However, millennia of socially ingrained sexism will not automatically
> disappear without a strong feminist consciousness in the socialist
> movement. Without a strong movement for women's rights now, it will be
> difficult to overcome the divisions within the 99% that make challenging
> the power of the 1% impossible.
>
> 6. IMPROVED LGBTI RIGHTS
>
> According to Australian Marriage Equality poll, 64% of Australians
> support same-sex marriage. Dividing Australians on this issue benefits
> the capitalist system by causing distraction.
>
> Denying marriage and adoption rights to the LGBTI community, and
> introducing legislation that actively oppresses the community -- like the
> "religious freedom" legislation that Tasmania is proposing -- is how the
> capitalist system tries to maintain the traditional idea of a nuclear
> family, which is needed to raise the next generation of workers.
>
> Equality is a crucial part of socialism, which is a system that does not
> accommodate restrictions on individual lifestyles or discredit the value
> of one's labour due to gender.
>
> 7. FREE EDUCATION NOT CORPORATE DEGREE FACTORIES
>
> Education under capitalism is a source of class division and is seen as
> an economic asset within our community. Education has become just
> another commodity. The desire to improve human potential through sharing
> knowledge has become another means by which the ruling class can profit
> and control the working class.
>
> Education under socialism would not be profit driven, but would be seen
> as the basic human right to knowledge and to increase our potential
> through knowledge. To this end, education under socialism would be free,
> and those engaged in study would be provided with affordable housing and
> a living wage.
>
> 8. AN END TO RACIST GOVERNMENT POLICIES
>
> The Western Australian government is in the process of shutting down 150
> remote Aboriginal communities, by turning off their power and water,
> because these communities have been deemed unsustainable. At the same
> time the federal government continues to disregard international law by
> detaining refugees in more horrendous circumstances than those they were
> fleeing.
>
> Racism, like sexism and homophobia, is another means by which the ruling
> class divides the working class. We are fed lies by the government and
> Murdoch press until we're afraid of the supposed "floods of refugees".
>
> Socialism promotes solidarity, a way for all oppressed and marginalised
> groups in society to support each other and fight for something better,
> because it is the same system that oppresses us all.
>
> 9. FOR A MORE ENVIRONMENTALLY SUSTAINABLE FUTURE
>
> In the past three decades, half of the Great Barrier Reef has been
> destroyed. Tony Abbott has abolished the renewable energy target and
> attacked many environmental agencies such as the Climate Commission,
> Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the Environmental Defenders Office.
> It is imperative if our planet is to sustain life that we do more than
> just reform and carbon-trading.
>
> A socialist solution would be motivated by preservation and climate
> justice, not profit, and would distribute resources more effectively
> than a profit based system, in which two-thirds of the world's food is
> wasted for profit generation.
>
> 10. PEOPLE-POWERED MEDIA NOT THE MURDOCH PRESS
>
> In Australia, 59% of all newspaper sales are of News Corp-owned
> publications. If you include Fairfax in the mix, 86% of newspaper sales
> go to the two companies.
>
> These are the publications, particularly the Murdoch-owned press, that
> have been accused of using their print media to influence election
> results. It is rare to find Murdoch or Fairfax journalists who are left
> of centre and even rarer to find an article openly promoting socialism
> in the Herald Sun or Courier Mail.
>
> This is why people powered media such as Green Left Weekly is so crucial
> in counteracting the pro-capitalist ideology promoted in the mainstream
> press and offering an alternative to the capitalist system.
>
> How can it be achieved?
>
> The transition to socialism will not happen overnight, nor is it a given
> that when people finally get frustrated enough with capitalism, that
> they would automatically turn to socialism. There is also the threat
> that they may move the other way towards fascism.
>
> The move towards socialism requires grassroots participation of
> activists and passionate individuals working collectively, who believe
> that another world is possible and that, more importantly, the working
> class has the power to build it.
>
> Like the article? Subscribe to Green Left now! You can also like us on
> Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
>
>
>
>
>
> From GLW issue 1050
> Tags: anti-racism
> anti-war
> Climate
> democracy
> education
> human rights
> Resistance Young Socialist Alliance
> revolution
> socialism
> women's liberation
> workers' rights & unions
> youth rights
>
>
> Login or register to post comments
>
>
>
> Australian news
> International news
> Comment & analysis
> Cultural dissent
> GreenLeft TV
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> FEATURED CONTENT
>
>
> International day of protest on May 1 against forced closure of
> Aboriginal communities
>
>
>
>
> Support glw
>
>
> "Congratulations once again to Green Left Weekly. As I've often said
> to people all over the world when they ask what the press is like in
> Australia, 'Mostly owned by Murdoch and mostly unfree'. But I always add
> quickly, 'There is one newspaper that is independent of powerful
> interests and that's Green Left Weekly'."
> John Pilger
>
> Donate securely online - every cent you donate helps us to keep going.
>
>
>
> Recent comments
>
>
> *The refugee debate and disingenuousness
> 1 week 2 days ago
> *Draghi blackmails Greeks
> 2 weeks 2 days ago
> *Universities should be
> 2 weeks 2 days ago
> *Dear comrades, the AWP
> 3 weeks 6 days ago
> *Confirmation of Account by Benny Wenda
> 4 weeks 5 days ago
> *CFMEU
> 4 weeks 5 days ago
> *Errors and inaccurate allegations of Benny Wenda's article
> 4 weeks 6 days ago
> *Indigenous researcher denigrates firestick farming theory
> 5 weeks 4 days ago
> *Drug-related deaths, preventable deaths & Bali duo
> 7 weeks 5 days ago
> *4 more reasons to fight fee deregulation
> 8 weeks 6 days ago
>
>
> Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> More GLW links >>
> Green Left Weekly discussion list
>
>
> Get in touch
>
>
> Don't just get informed, get active! Receive regular emails about GLW &
> progressive events in your area.
>
>
>
>
> Name: *
>
>
> Email: *
>
>
> Phone:
>
>
> Post code:
>
>
>
>
> get connected
>
>
> join us on facebook
>
> follow our tweets
>
> add us to your rss feed
> .
>
>
>
>
> categories australian news
> international
> comment & analysis
> cultural dissent
> our common cause
> letters
> general
>
> general activist calendar
> back issues
> current issue
> why an alternative press?
>
>
>
>
> about GLW - the need for alternative media
>
>
> In these days of growing media concentration, Green Left Weekly is a
> proudly independent voice committed to human and civil rights, global
> peace and environmental sustainability, democracy and equality. By
> printing the news and ideas the mainstream media won't, Green Left
> Weekly exposes the lies and distortions of the power brokers and helps
> us to better understand the world around us.
>
> Green Left Weekly, launched in 1990 by progressive activists to present
> the views excluded by the big business media, is now Australia's leading
> source of local, national and international news, analysis, and
> discussion and debate to strengthen the anti-capitalist movements.
>
> Read more about Green Left Weekly...
>
> _______________________________________________
> Blind-Democracy mailing list
> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
Nonviolence as Compliance
In the early 1970's, I operated three different food service
facilities under the Business Enterprises Program(BEP). The Office of
Services for the Blind, made what some of us believed to be erroneous
assumptions. For example, it was held that a totally blind person
could not operate a full service cafeteria.
Training materials were not provided in any format other than print,
and the selection and promotion of venders was not shared outside the
BEP staff. As a blind vender and as president of the state blind
organization, the Washington State Association of the Blind(WSAB), I
approached the 23 other operators in the program and suggested that we
should call a meeting for the purpose of exploring the formation of a
bargaining unit.
Between our campaign to establish a Commission for the Blind,
organizing the Blind Vendors, sponsoring the White Cane legislation as
well as a bill demanding the right of the blind to serve on juries,
and running the first cafeteria operated by a totally blind person, my
plate was full. Did I mention that I was also newly remarried and
raising a family?
Anyway, during all of this excitement, we organized a demonstration in
front of the Office of Services for the Blind's Seattle building. It
was the tenth anniversary of the opening of this facility, billed as
the most advanced training center for the blind West of the
Mississippi River. The WSAB claimed that the programs were stagnant,
repressive, and failed to develop employment opportunities for blind
clients.
We organized a demonstration to coincide with the publicity the Office
had lined up. When the news cameras and reporters arrived, they were
met by a large group of blind people carrying signs denouncing the
quality of Vocational Services.
I recall the chief of the Office, Doctor Jerome Dunham, bringing out
a big plate of cookies to be passed among the picketers. But the one
that got me most of all was the administrator of the BEP, Frank
Hoppes. Frank asked me to stop by his office and chat. When we were
seated Frank leaned forward and said, in his smoothest purring voice,
"Carl, let's don't make waves."
In Frank's mind, everything was going just fine and dandy until some
rabble rouser rocked the boat. The establishment always wants to have
things calm and orderly and under control. What amazes me is how long
the oppressed folks wait around, hoping things will improve, before
they finally take all they can take. And you can always bet that as
soon as the first rock is thrown or the first car is tipped over, the
mayor or governor or police chief will jump in front of the cameras
and call for peace.
My advice to these silly geese is, "You can do something to prevent
this from happening again. All you have to do is to include these
people in your job description. Take care of their needs and they'll
give you the peace you want."
Carl Jarvis
On 4/29/15, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> Coates writes: "Officials calling for calm can offer no rational
> justification for Gray's death, and so they appeal for order, nonviolence,
> and compliance."
>
> A protestor on a bike in Baltimore. (photo: Jim Bourg/Reuters)
>
>
> Nonviolence as Compliance
> By Ta-Nehisi Coates, The Atlantic
> 28 April 15
>
> Officials calling for calm can offer no rational justification for Gray's
> death, and so they appeal for order.
>
> Rioting broke out on Monday in Baltimore-an angry response to the death of
> Freddie Gray, a death my native city seems powerless to explain. Gray did
> not die mysteriously in some back alley but in the custody of the city's
> publicly appointed guardians of order. And yet the mayor of that city and
> the commissioner of that city's police still have no idea what happened. I
> suspect this is not because the mayor and police commissioner are bad
> people, but because the state of Maryland prioritizes the protection of
> police officers charged with abuse over the citizens who fall under its
> purview.
> The citizens who live in West Baltimore, where the rioting began,
> intuitively understand this. I grew up across the street from Mondawmin
> Mall, where today's riots began. My mother was raised in the same housing
> project, Gilmor Homes, where Freddie Gray was killed. Everyone I knew who
> lived in that world regarded the police not with admiration and respect but
> with fear and caution. People write these feelings off as wholly irrational
> at their own peril, or their own leisure. The case against the Baltimore
> police, and the society that superintends them, is easily made:
> Over the past four years, more than 100 people have won court judgments or
> settlements related to allegations of brutality and civil rights
> violations.
> Victims include a 15-year-old boy riding a dirt bike, a 26-year-old
> pregnant
> accountant who had witnessed a beating, a 50-year-old woman selling church
> raffle tickets, a 65-year-old church deacon rolling a cigarette and an
> 87-year-old grandmother aiding her wounded grandson ....
> And in almost every case, prosecutors or judges dismissed the charges
> against the victims-if charges were filed at all. In an incident that drew
> headlines recently, charges against a South Baltimore man were dropped
> after
> a video showed an officer repeatedly punching him-a beating that led the
> police commissioner to say he was "shocked."
> The money paid out by the city to cover for the brutal acts of its police
> department would be enough to build "a state-of-the-art rec center or
> renovations at more than 30 playgrounds." Instead, the money was used to
> cover for the brutal acts of the city's police department and ensure they
> remained well beyond any semblance of justice.
> Now, tonight, I turn on the news and I see politicians calling for young
> people in Baltimore to remain peaceful and "nonviolent." These
> well-intended
> pleas strike me as the right answer to the wrong question. To understand
> the
> question, it's worth remembering what, specifically, happened to Freddie
> Gray. An officer made eye contact with Gray. Gray, for unknown reasons,
> ran.
> The officer and his colleagues then detained Gray. They found him in
> possession of a switchblade. They arrested him while he yelled in pain. And
> then, within an hour, his spine was mostly severed. A week later, he was
> dead. What specifically was the crime here? What particular threat did
> Freddie Gray pose? Why is mere eye contact and then running worthy of
> detention at the hands of the state? Why is Freddie Gray dead?
> When nonviolence begins halfway through the war with the aggressor calling
> time out, it exposes itself as a ruse.
> The people now calling for nonviolence are not prepared to answer these
> questions. Many of them are charged with enforcing the very policies that
> led to Gray's death, and yet they can offer no rational justification for
> Gray's death and so they appeal for calm. But there was no official appeal
> for calm when Gray was being arrested. There was no appeal for calm when
> Jerriel Lyles was assaulted. ("The blow was so heavy. My eyes swelled up.
> Blood was dripping down my nose and out my eye.") There was no claim for
> nonviolence on behalf of Venus Green. ("Bitch, you ain't no better than any
> of the other old black bitches I have locked up.") There was no plea for
> peace on behalf of Starr Brown. ("They slammed me down on my face," Brown
> added, her voice cracking. "The skin was gone on my face.")
> When nonviolence is preached as an attempt to evade the repercussions of
> political brutality, it betrays itself. When nonviolence begins halfway
> through the war with the aggressor calling time out, it exposes itself as a
> ruse. When nonviolence is preached by the representatives of the state,
> while the state doles out heaps of violence to its citizens, it reveals
> itself to be a con. And none of this can mean that rioting or violence is
> "correct" or "wise," any more than a forest fire can be "correct" or
> "wise."
> Wisdom isn't the point tonight. Disrespect is. In this case, disrespect for
> the hollow law and failed order that so regularly disrespects the
> community.
> Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not
> valid.
>
> A protestor on a bike in Baltimore. (photo: Jim Bourg/Reuters)
> http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/nonviolence-as-complianc
> e/391640/http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/nonviolence-as-
> compliance/391640/
> Nonviolence as Compliance
> By Ta-Nehisi Coates, The Atlantic
> 28 April 15
> Officials calling for calm can offer no rational justification for Gray's
> death, and so they appeal for order.
> ioting broke out on Monday in Baltimore-an angry response to the death of
> Freddie Gray, a death my native city seems powerless to explain. Gray did
> not die mysteriously in some back alley but in the custody of the city's
> publicly appointed guardians of order. And yet the mayor of that city and
> the commissioner of that city's police still have no idea what happened. I
> suspect this is not because the mayor and police commissioner are bad
> people, but because the state of Maryland prioritizes the protection of
> police officers charged with abuse over the citizens who fall under its
> purview.
> The citizens who live in West Baltimore, where the rioting began,
> intuitively understand this. I grew up across the street from Mondawmin
> Mall, where today's riots began. My mother was raised in the same housing
> project, Gilmor Homes, where Freddie Gray was killed. Everyone I knew who
> lived in that world regarded the police not with admiration and respect but
> with fear and caution. People write these feelings off as wholly irrational
> at their own peril, or their own leisure. The case against the Baltimore
> police, and the society that superintends them, is easily made:
> Over the past four years, more than 100 people have won court judgments or
> settlements related to allegations of brutality and civil rights
> violations.
> Victims include a 15-year-old boy riding a dirt bike, a 26-year-old
> pregnant
> accountant who had witnessed a beating, a 50-year-old woman selling church
> raffle tickets, a 65-year-old church deacon rolling a cigarette and an
> 87-year-old grandmother aiding her wounded grandson ....
> And in almost every case, prosecutors or judges dismissed the charges
> against the victims-if charges were filed at all. In an incident that drew
> headlines recently, charges against a South Baltimore man were dropped
> after
> a video showed an officer repeatedly punching him-a beating that led the
> police commissioner to say he was "shocked."
> The money paid out by the city to cover for the brutal acts of its police
> department would be enough to build "a state-of-the-art rec center or
> renovations at more than 30 playgrounds." Instead, the money was used to
> cover for the brutal acts of the city's police department and ensure they
> remained well beyond any semblance of justice.
> Now, tonight, I turn on the news and I see politicians calling for young
> people in Baltimore to remain peaceful and "nonviolent." These
> well-intended
> pleas strike me as the right answer to the wrong question. To understand
> the
> question, it's worth remembering what, specifically, happened to Freddie
> Gray. An officer made eye contact with Gray. Gray, for unknown reasons,
> ran.
> The officer and his colleagues then detained Gray. They found him in
> possession of a switchblade. They arrested him while he yelled in pain. And
> then, within an hour, his spine was mostly severed. A week later, he was
> dead. What specifically was the crime here? What particular threat did
> Freddie Gray pose? Why is mere eye contact and then running worthy of
> detention at the hands of the state? Why is Freddie Gray dead?
> When nonviolence begins halfway through the war with the aggressor calling
> time out, it exposes itself as a ruse.
> The people now calling for nonviolence are not prepared to answer these
> questions. Many of them are charged with enforcing the very policies that
> led to Gray's death, and yet they can offer no rational justification for
> Gray's death and so they appeal for calm. But there was no official appeal
> for calm when Gray was being arrested. There was no appeal for calm when
> Jerriel Lyles was assaulted. ("The blow was so heavy. My eyes swelled up.
> Blood was dripping down my nose and out my eye.") There was no claim for
> nonviolence on behalf of Venus Green. ("Bitch, you ain't no better than any
> of the other old black bitches I have locked up.") There was no plea for
> peace on behalf of Starr Brown. ("They slammed me down on my face," Brown
> added, her voice cracking. "The skin was gone on my face.")
> When nonviolence is preached as an attempt to evade the repercussions of
> political brutality, it betrays itself. When nonviolence begins halfway
> through the war with the aggressor calling time out, it exposes itself as a
> ruse. When nonviolence is preached by the representatives of the state,
> while the state doles out heaps of violence to its citizens, it reveals
> itself to be a con. And none of this can mean that rioting or violence is
> "correct" or "wise," any more than a forest fire can be "correct" or
> "wise."
> Wisdom isn't the point tonight. Disrespect is. In this case, disrespect for
> the hollow law and failed order that so regularly disrespects the
> community.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Blind-Democracy mailing list
> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>
facilities under the Business Enterprises Program(BEP). The Office of
Services for the Blind, made what some of us believed to be erroneous
assumptions. For example, it was held that a totally blind person
could not operate a full service cafeteria.
Training materials were not provided in any format other than print,
and the selection and promotion of venders was not shared outside the
BEP staff. As a blind vender and as president of the state blind
organization, the Washington State Association of the Blind(WSAB), I
approached the 23 other operators in the program and suggested that we
should call a meeting for the purpose of exploring the formation of a
bargaining unit.
Between our campaign to establish a Commission for the Blind,
organizing the Blind Vendors, sponsoring the White Cane legislation as
well as a bill demanding the right of the blind to serve on juries,
and running the first cafeteria operated by a totally blind person, my
plate was full. Did I mention that I was also newly remarried and
raising a family?
Anyway, during all of this excitement, we organized a demonstration in
front of the Office of Services for the Blind's Seattle building. It
was the tenth anniversary of the opening of this facility, billed as
the most advanced training center for the blind West of the
Mississippi River. The WSAB claimed that the programs were stagnant,
repressive, and failed to develop employment opportunities for blind
clients.
We organized a demonstration to coincide with the publicity the Office
had lined up. When the news cameras and reporters arrived, they were
met by a large group of blind people carrying signs denouncing the
quality of Vocational Services.
I recall the chief of the Office, Doctor Jerome Dunham, bringing out
a big plate of cookies to be passed among the picketers. But the one
that got me most of all was the administrator of the BEP, Frank
Hoppes. Frank asked me to stop by his office and chat. When we were
seated Frank leaned forward and said, in his smoothest purring voice,
"Carl, let's don't make waves."
In Frank's mind, everything was going just fine and dandy until some
rabble rouser rocked the boat. The establishment always wants to have
things calm and orderly and under control. What amazes me is how long
the oppressed folks wait around, hoping things will improve, before
they finally take all they can take. And you can always bet that as
soon as the first rock is thrown or the first car is tipped over, the
mayor or governor or police chief will jump in front of the cameras
and call for peace.
My advice to these silly geese is, "You can do something to prevent
this from happening again. All you have to do is to include these
people in your job description. Take care of their needs and they'll
give you the peace you want."
Carl Jarvis
On 4/29/15, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> Coates writes: "Officials calling for calm can offer no rational
> justification for Gray's death, and so they appeal for order, nonviolence,
> and compliance."
>
> A protestor on a bike in Baltimore. (photo: Jim Bourg/Reuters)
>
>
> Nonviolence as Compliance
> By Ta-Nehisi Coates, The Atlantic
> 28 April 15
>
> Officials calling for calm can offer no rational justification for Gray's
> death, and so they appeal for order.
>
> Rioting broke out on Monday in Baltimore-an angry response to the death of
> Freddie Gray, a death my native city seems powerless to explain. Gray did
> not die mysteriously in some back alley but in the custody of the city's
> publicly appointed guardians of order. And yet the mayor of that city and
> the commissioner of that city's police still have no idea what happened. I
> suspect this is not because the mayor and police commissioner are bad
> people, but because the state of Maryland prioritizes the protection of
> police officers charged with abuse over the citizens who fall under its
> purview.
> The citizens who live in West Baltimore, where the rioting began,
> intuitively understand this. I grew up across the street from Mondawmin
> Mall, where today's riots began. My mother was raised in the same housing
> project, Gilmor Homes, where Freddie Gray was killed. Everyone I knew who
> lived in that world regarded the police not with admiration and respect but
> with fear and caution. People write these feelings off as wholly irrational
> at their own peril, or their own leisure. The case against the Baltimore
> police, and the society that superintends them, is easily made:
> Over the past four years, more than 100 people have won court judgments or
> settlements related to allegations of brutality and civil rights
> violations.
> Victims include a 15-year-old boy riding a dirt bike, a 26-year-old
> pregnant
> accountant who had witnessed a beating, a 50-year-old woman selling church
> raffle tickets, a 65-year-old church deacon rolling a cigarette and an
> 87-year-old grandmother aiding her wounded grandson ....
> And in almost every case, prosecutors or judges dismissed the charges
> against the victims-if charges were filed at all. In an incident that drew
> headlines recently, charges against a South Baltimore man were dropped
> after
> a video showed an officer repeatedly punching him-a beating that led the
> police commissioner to say he was "shocked."
> The money paid out by the city to cover for the brutal acts of its police
> department would be enough to build "a state-of-the-art rec center or
> renovations at more than 30 playgrounds." Instead, the money was used to
> cover for the brutal acts of the city's police department and ensure they
> remained well beyond any semblance of justice.
> Now, tonight, I turn on the news and I see politicians calling for young
> people in Baltimore to remain peaceful and "nonviolent." These
> well-intended
> pleas strike me as the right answer to the wrong question. To understand
> the
> question, it's worth remembering what, specifically, happened to Freddie
> Gray. An officer made eye contact with Gray. Gray, for unknown reasons,
> ran.
> The officer and his colleagues then detained Gray. They found him in
> possession of a switchblade. They arrested him while he yelled in pain. And
> then, within an hour, his spine was mostly severed. A week later, he was
> dead. What specifically was the crime here? What particular threat did
> Freddie Gray pose? Why is mere eye contact and then running worthy of
> detention at the hands of the state? Why is Freddie Gray dead?
> When nonviolence begins halfway through the war with the aggressor calling
> time out, it exposes itself as a ruse.
> The people now calling for nonviolence are not prepared to answer these
> questions. Many of them are charged with enforcing the very policies that
> led to Gray's death, and yet they can offer no rational justification for
> Gray's death and so they appeal for calm. But there was no official appeal
> for calm when Gray was being arrested. There was no appeal for calm when
> Jerriel Lyles was assaulted. ("The blow was so heavy. My eyes swelled up.
> Blood was dripping down my nose and out my eye.") There was no claim for
> nonviolence on behalf of Venus Green. ("Bitch, you ain't no better than any
> of the other old black bitches I have locked up.") There was no plea for
> peace on behalf of Starr Brown. ("They slammed me down on my face," Brown
> added, her voice cracking. "The skin was gone on my face.")
> When nonviolence is preached as an attempt to evade the repercussions of
> political brutality, it betrays itself. When nonviolence begins halfway
> through the war with the aggressor calling time out, it exposes itself as a
> ruse. When nonviolence is preached by the representatives of the state,
> while the state doles out heaps of violence to its citizens, it reveals
> itself to be a con. And none of this can mean that rioting or violence is
> "correct" or "wise," any more than a forest fire can be "correct" or
> "wise."
> Wisdom isn't the point tonight. Disrespect is. In this case, disrespect for
> the hollow law and failed order that so regularly disrespects the
> community.
> Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not
> valid.
>
> A protestor on a bike in Baltimore. (photo: Jim Bourg/Reuters)
> http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/nonviolence-as-complianc
> e/391640/http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/nonviolence-as-
> compliance/391640/
> Nonviolence as Compliance
> By Ta-Nehisi Coates, The Atlantic
> 28 April 15
> Officials calling for calm can offer no rational justification for Gray's
> death, and so they appeal for order.
> ioting broke out on Monday in Baltimore-an angry response to the death of
> Freddie Gray, a death my native city seems powerless to explain. Gray did
> not die mysteriously in some back alley but in the custody of the city's
> publicly appointed guardians of order. And yet the mayor of that city and
> the commissioner of that city's police still have no idea what happened. I
> suspect this is not because the mayor and police commissioner are bad
> people, but because the state of Maryland prioritizes the protection of
> police officers charged with abuse over the citizens who fall under its
> purview.
> The citizens who live in West Baltimore, where the rioting began,
> intuitively understand this. I grew up across the street from Mondawmin
> Mall, where today's riots began. My mother was raised in the same housing
> project, Gilmor Homes, where Freddie Gray was killed. Everyone I knew who
> lived in that world regarded the police not with admiration and respect but
> with fear and caution. People write these feelings off as wholly irrational
> at their own peril, or their own leisure. The case against the Baltimore
> police, and the society that superintends them, is easily made:
> Over the past four years, more than 100 people have won court judgments or
> settlements related to allegations of brutality and civil rights
> violations.
> Victims include a 15-year-old boy riding a dirt bike, a 26-year-old
> pregnant
> accountant who had witnessed a beating, a 50-year-old woman selling church
> raffle tickets, a 65-year-old church deacon rolling a cigarette and an
> 87-year-old grandmother aiding her wounded grandson ....
> And in almost every case, prosecutors or judges dismissed the charges
> against the victims-if charges were filed at all. In an incident that drew
> headlines recently, charges against a South Baltimore man were dropped
> after
> a video showed an officer repeatedly punching him-a beating that led the
> police commissioner to say he was "shocked."
> The money paid out by the city to cover for the brutal acts of its police
> department would be enough to build "a state-of-the-art rec center or
> renovations at more than 30 playgrounds." Instead, the money was used to
> cover for the brutal acts of the city's police department and ensure they
> remained well beyond any semblance of justice.
> Now, tonight, I turn on the news and I see politicians calling for young
> people in Baltimore to remain peaceful and "nonviolent." These
> well-intended
> pleas strike me as the right answer to the wrong question. To understand
> the
> question, it's worth remembering what, specifically, happened to Freddie
> Gray. An officer made eye contact with Gray. Gray, for unknown reasons,
> ran.
> The officer and his colleagues then detained Gray. They found him in
> possession of a switchblade. They arrested him while he yelled in pain. And
> then, within an hour, his spine was mostly severed. A week later, he was
> dead. What specifically was the crime here? What particular threat did
> Freddie Gray pose? Why is mere eye contact and then running worthy of
> detention at the hands of the state? Why is Freddie Gray dead?
> When nonviolence begins halfway through the war with the aggressor calling
> time out, it exposes itself as a ruse.
> The people now calling for nonviolence are not prepared to answer these
> questions. Many of them are charged with enforcing the very policies that
> led to Gray's death, and yet they can offer no rational justification for
> Gray's death and so they appeal for calm. But there was no official appeal
> for calm when Gray was being arrested. There was no appeal for calm when
> Jerriel Lyles was assaulted. ("The blow was so heavy. My eyes swelled up.
> Blood was dripping down my nose and out my eye.") There was no claim for
> nonviolence on behalf of Venus Green. ("Bitch, you ain't no better than any
> of the other old black bitches I have locked up.") There was no plea for
> peace on behalf of Starr Brown. ("They slammed me down on my face," Brown
> added, her voice cracking. "The skin was gone on my face.")
> When nonviolence is preached as an attempt to evade the repercussions of
> political brutality, it betrays itself. When nonviolence begins halfway
> through the war with the aggressor calling time out, it exposes itself as a
> ruse. When nonviolence is preached by the representatives of the state,
> while the state doles out heaps of violence to its citizens, it reveals
> itself to be a con. And none of this can mean that rioting or violence is
> "correct" or "wise," any more than a forest fire can be "correct" or
> "wise."
> Wisdom isn't the point tonight. Disrespect is. In this case, disrespect for
> the hollow law and failed order that so regularly disrespects the
> community.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Blind-Democracy mailing list
> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>
With the Wisdom of Hindsight, George Bush Blames Obama for Lack of Wars ('Follow-Through' on 'Threats')
Of course we should have won the war. If, if, if, if only we had done
what we now think we should have done.
But Brother George, it didn't work for you. So why do you think it
would work for Barak Obama? While you were giggling and flapping
about on TV, looking for those pesky weapons of mass destruction,
thousands of young people, old people and innocent children were being
singled out for death. All of that was on your watch. You are living
proof of the definition of insanity...doing the same thing over and
over, believing you will get different results. And of course you
should be worried about the world your grand children will inherit.
You laid the foundation. You speak out for violence as an answer to
violence. You are living proof that money can buy anything. Even an
incompetent president.
But I am wasting far too much time venting. Why would anyone even
consider your foolish babbling as worth hearing? Crawl back in your
safe little ranch and finish dying.
Carl Jarvis
On 4/28/15, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> Cole writes: "He said Obama hadn't 'followed through' on threats against
> al-Qaeda and Daesh (ISIL or ISIS), making the US look weak. 'In order to be
> an effective president ... when you say something, you have to mean it,' he
> said. 'You gotta kill 'em.'"
>
> Barack Obama and George W. Bush. (photo: Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images)
>
>
> Bush Blames Obama for Lack of Wars ('Follow-Through' on 'Threats')
> By Juan Cole, Informed Comment
> 28 April 15
>
> George W. Bush spoke privately this weekend at a Republican Jewish
> Coalition
> session hosted by casino sleazeball Sheldon Adelson, who made his pile in a
> very shady way in China's Macau and now gets to choose the US president
> with
> his ill-gotten gains. What was remarkable was that Bush launched into a
> criticism of Barack Obama, something he's tried to avoid since fleeing
> Washington in disgrace.
> Unsurprisingly, Bush wanted Obama to make all the same mistakes that he
> did.
> He said Obama hadn't "followed through" on threats against al-Qaeda and
> Daesh (ISIL or ISIS), making the US look weak. "In order to be an effective
> president . when you say something, you have to mean it," he said. "You
> gotta kill 'em." In Bushworld, it is no good warning an adversary about its
> behavior without actually going to war with that nation. (But then why
> issue
> the warning at all?).
> Bush did not kill Bin Laden. Obama did. Bush closed down the CIA Bin Laden
> desk and declared him not a priority, after threatening him. Inconsistent,
> much?
> Bush criticized Obama for withdrawing from Iraq in 2011. But of course it
> was the Status of Forces Agreement negotiated by Bush with the Iraqi
> parliament that stipulated a US departure by the end of 2011. Obama didn't
> make a new policy here; it was the Bush policy that was implemented. Nor is
> it reasonable to have expected the Iraqi parliament to want more US
> Occupation- no such SOFA could then have gotten through parliament. That
> Iraqis had a key role in deciding all this is routinely ignored by the US
> press and politicians, including, now, Bush.
> Bush also essentially called Obama naive over his negotiations with Iran,
> saying he worried about the world his grandchildren would live in. Since
> Bush let al-Qaeda and thence Daesh into Iraq during his military occupation
> of that country, it is he who must bear responsibility, not Obama.
> Moreover,
> during Bush's non-negoatiation with Iran, that country's centrifuges went
> from 6,000 to 19,000. Great dealmaking.
>
> Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not
> valid.
>
> Barack Obama and George W. Bush. (photo: Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images)
> http://www.juancole.com/2015/04/blames-through-threats.htmlhttp://www.juanco
> le.com/2015/04/blames-through-threats.html
> Bush Blames Obama for Lack of Wars ('Follow-Through' on 'Threats')
> By Juan Cole, Informed Comment
> 28 April 15
> eorge W. Bush spoke privately this weekend at a Republican Jewish
> Coalition
> session hosted by casino sleazeball Sheldon Adelson, who made his pile in a
> very shady way in China's Macau and now gets to choose the US president
> with
> his ill-gotten gains. What was remarkable was that Bush launched into a
> criticism of Barack Obama, something he's tried to avoid since fleeing
> Washington in disgrace.
> Unsurprisingly, Bush wanted Obama to make all the same mistakes that he
> did.
> He said Obama hadn't "followed through" on threats against al-Qaeda and
> Daesh (ISIL or ISIS), making the US look weak. "In order to be an effective
> president . when you say something, you have to mean it," he said. "You
> gotta kill 'em." In Bushworld, it is no good warning an adversary about its
> behavior without actually going to war with that nation. (But then why
> issue
> the warning at all?).
> Bush did not kill Bin Laden. Obama did. Bush closed down the CIA Bin Laden
> desk and declared him not a priority, after threatening him. Inconsistent,
> much?
> Bush criticized Obama for withdrawing from Iraq in 2011. But of course it
> was the Status of Forces Agreement negotiated by Bush with the Iraqi
> parliament that stipulated a US departure by the end of 2011. Obama didn't
> make a new policy here; it was the Bush policy that was implemented. Nor is
> it reasonable to have expected the Iraqi parliament to want more US
> Occupation- no such SOFA could then have gotten through parliament. That
> Iraqis had a key role in deciding all this is routinely ignored by the US
> press and politicians, including, now, Bush.
> Bush also essentially called Obama naive over his negotiations with Iran,
> saying he worried about the world his grandchildren would live in. Since
> Bush let al-Qaeda and thence Daesh into Iraq during his military occupation
> of that country, it is he who must bear responsibility, not Obama.
> Moreover,
> during Bush's non-negoatiation with Iran, that country's centrifuges went
> from 6,000 to 19,000. Great dealmaking.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Blind-Democracy mailing list
> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>
what we now think we should have done.
But Brother George, it didn't work for you. So why do you think it
would work for Barak Obama? While you were giggling and flapping
about on TV, looking for those pesky weapons of mass destruction,
thousands of young people, old people and innocent children were being
singled out for death. All of that was on your watch. You are living
proof of the definition of insanity...doing the same thing over and
over, believing you will get different results. And of course you
should be worried about the world your grand children will inherit.
You laid the foundation. You speak out for violence as an answer to
violence. You are living proof that money can buy anything. Even an
incompetent president.
But I am wasting far too much time venting. Why would anyone even
consider your foolish babbling as worth hearing? Crawl back in your
safe little ranch and finish dying.
Carl Jarvis
On 4/28/15, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> Cole writes: "He said Obama hadn't 'followed through' on threats against
> al-Qaeda and Daesh (ISIL or ISIS), making the US look weak. 'In order to be
> an effective president ... when you say something, you have to mean it,' he
> said. 'You gotta kill 'em.'"
>
> Barack Obama and George W. Bush. (photo: Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images)
>
>
> Bush Blames Obama for Lack of Wars ('Follow-Through' on 'Threats')
> By Juan Cole, Informed Comment
> 28 April 15
>
> George W. Bush spoke privately this weekend at a Republican Jewish
> Coalition
> session hosted by casino sleazeball Sheldon Adelson, who made his pile in a
> very shady way in China's Macau and now gets to choose the US president
> with
> his ill-gotten gains. What was remarkable was that Bush launched into a
> criticism of Barack Obama, something he's tried to avoid since fleeing
> Washington in disgrace.
> Unsurprisingly, Bush wanted Obama to make all the same mistakes that he
> did.
> He said Obama hadn't "followed through" on threats against al-Qaeda and
> Daesh (ISIL or ISIS), making the US look weak. "In order to be an effective
> president . when you say something, you have to mean it," he said. "You
> gotta kill 'em." In Bushworld, it is no good warning an adversary about its
> behavior without actually going to war with that nation. (But then why
> issue
> the warning at all?).
> Bush did not kill Bin Laden. Obama did. Bush closed down the CIA Bin Laden
> desk and declared him not a priority, after threatening him. Inconsistent,
> much?
> Bush criticized Obama for withdrawing from Iraq in 2011. But of course it
> was the Status of Forces Agreement negotiated by Bush with the Iraqi
> parliament that stipulated a US departure by the end of 2011. Obama didn't
> make a new policy here; it was the Bush policy that was implemented. Nor is
> it reasonable to have expected the Iraqi parliament to want more US
> Occupation- no such SOFA could then have gotten through parliament. That
> Iraqis had a key role in deciding all this is routinely ignored by the US
> press and politicians, including, now, Bush.
> Bush also essentially called Obama naive over his negotiations with Iran,
> saying he worried about the world his grandchildren would live in. Since
> Bush let al-Qaeda and thence Daesh into Iraq during his military occupation
> of that country, it is he who must bear responsibility, not Obama.
> Moreover,
> during Bush's non-negoatiation with Iran, that country's centrifuges went
> from 6,000 to 19,000. Great dealmaking.
>
> Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not
> valid.
>
> Barack Obama and George W. Bush. (photo: Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images)
> http://www.juancole.com/2015/04/blames-through-threats.htmlhttp://www.juanco
> le.com/2015/04/blames-through-threats.html
> Bush Blames Obama for Lack of Wars ('Follow-Through' on 'Threats')
> By Juan Cole, Informed Comment
> 28 April 15
> eorge W. Bush spoke privately this weekend at a Republican Jewish
> Coalition
> session hosted by casino sleazeball Sheldon Adelson, who made his pile in a
> very shady way in China's Macau and now gets to choose the US president
> with
> his ill-gotten gains. What was remarkable was that Bush launched into a
> criticism of Barack Obama, something he's tried to avoid since fleeing
> Washington in disgrace.
> Unsurprisingly, Bush wanted Obama to make all the same mistakes that he
> did.
> He said Obama hadn't "followed through" on threats against al-Qaeda and
> Daesh (ISIL or ISIS), making the US look weak. "In order to be an effective
> president . when you say something, you have to mean it," he said. "You
> gotta kill 'em." In Bushworld, it is no good warning an adversary about its
> behavior without actually going to war with that nation. (But then why
> issue
> the warning at all?).
> Bush did not kill Bin Laden. Obama did. Bush closed down the CIA Bin Laden
> desk and declared him not a priority, after threatening him. Inconsistent,
> much?
> Bush criticized Obama for withdrawing from Iraq in 2011. But of course it
> was the Status of Forces Agreement negotiated by Bush with the Iraqi
> parliament that stipulated a US departure by the end of 2011. Obama didn't
> make a new policy here; it was the Bush policy that was implemented. Nor is
> it reasonable to have expected the Iraqi parliament to want more US
> Occupation- no such SOFA could then have gotten through parliament. That
> Iraqis had a key role in deciding all this is routinely ignored by the US
> press and politicians, including, now, Bush.
> Bush also essentially called Obama naive over his negotiations with Iran,
> saying he worried about the world his grandchildren would live in. Since
> Bush let al-Qaeda and thence Daesh into Iraq during his military occupation
> of that country, it is he who must bear responsibility, not Obama.
> Moreover,
> during Bush's non-negoatiation with Iran, that country's centrifuges went
> from 6,000 to 19,000. Great dealmaking.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Blind-Democracy mailing list
> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>
Tuesday, April 28, 2015
I've Been a hard working errodic services provider, for Almost 10 Years-Here's How I Feel About It
So Charlie, do you like the new Subject Heading?
My objective in using the word, Prostitute, was to engage in
conversation over whether or not all of us are selling our bodies,
minds and often, our Souls under Capitalism. not to get folks backs
up.
So often we single out someone or something we disagree with and fuss
and fret over how we can rid society of such a blight. But too often
we are simply focused on the "underside" of our very society.
We could pick on many comparrisons, but Prostitution seems to get
folks dander up. I always tried to work Sex into my "Attitudes Class"
in the Orientation and Training Center. Students who would normally
nod off, leaned forward the entire class, waiting for the subject to
come around. So we're facinated with Sex. And it's a good thing,
too. Sex is what makes the world go round. Not Love.
I mean, I love my children, but we're not going to increase the
Earth's population.
Somehow we've developed a love/hate relationship with Sex. We all go
about having sex, at least I hope we all do, but when a person decides
to sell their most prized possession, we jump around demanding that
our authorities do something. Our Pillars of our community, the
successful business men and women, our Church officials, and in fact,
all of our role models turn on the humble Whore as if she/he were from
another world. We must stop this peddling on our street corners,
comes the indignant cry. And yet we are just fine with the folks
selling themselves as workers in the Fast Food Chains. The Tellers in
our banks. The small business person, selling their wares from open
store fronts on our public streets. Some of us love our prostituting,
and some of us hate it. But we all do it because it is how we
survive.
The reason we draw back from the word, Prostitute, is because deep
down we know that this is what we are. Rather than using another term
than prostitute, we would be better to admit that this is how our
Ruling Class has set the conditions. Perhaps we should change the
name of Wall Street to, Pimp Street.
And all of us are caught up in this strange method of Prostituting
ourselves. We count ourselves as being successful if we rise up to a
place where we have folks working for us. Now we are not only
Prostituting ourselves to those above us, but we are forcing others to
do the same for us.
Finally, just because this is the world as we know it, and just
because someone will say that this is the most efficient method of
organizing our world, does not make it right. Nor does it make it the
only method.
Carl Jarvis
<CCrawford@rcn.com> wrote:
> Hi Carl,
>
> Thanks for responding and one way to perceive this problem is to
> remove the term prostituting ourselves and replacing it with working hard
> or
> some other phrase that means we expend our talents or something like that.
> Looking at the subject from that perspective, we then can either work at
> what we believe in as worth doing, or simply earn a paycheck. Somehow that
> sounds better to me than the term prostituting ourselves that sounds
> pejorative to me. Smile.
>
> Charlie.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Blind-Democracy [mailto:blind-democracy-bounces@octothorp.org] On
> Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
> Sent: 26 April 2015 19:17
> To: Blind Democracy Discussion List
> Subject: I've Been a Prostitute for Almost 10 Years-Here's How I Feel About
> It
>
> No doubt about it, Charlie. And by the way, Shirley tells me to say
> "hello" back to you. She always speaks highly of you. Shirley Smith
> is not the person I had in mind. But I worked under a Gaggle of
> Directors over the years. Jerome Dunham, Ken Hopkins, Bill James,
> Paul DzieDzic, Shirley Smith, Bill Palmer, and a couple of interim
> directors.
> In my personal opinion, some of these folks felt the job was very
> comfortable, at least two saw it as a stepping stone. Only two,
> Shirley Smith and Ken Hopkins believed that blindness was not a deal
> breaker.
> Ken became Chief of the Office of Services for the blind, and when we
> passed the Commission Bill, he was hired as the first director. In
> his six years at the helm, Ken brought the Commission from an inept,
> beleaguered agency, to an effective program. Without going into it,
> the 1979-1980 organizational differences between the Washington Blind
> and the NFB Office carried over into the Commission. Ken resigned and
> went off to California to McGeorge, and his law degree. It was not
> until 1987 that Shirley took on the Directorship of what had become
> the Department of Services for the Blind. As Deputy Director, Shirley
> had been my boss from the first day she came aboard in 1982. I was
> director of the Orientation and Training Center. When Shirley was
> appointed Director, she asked me to be her assistant director for
> field services.
> We worked closely, and Shirley never hid the fact that I served as her
> Expert in Blindness. I was always impressed at how quickly Shirley
> understood the issues and problems faced by blind people. I've always
> considered it to have been a rare opportunity and a privilege to have
> served under her. So, Shirley and I, along with all employees of the
> Department, served at the pleasure of our state legislature. In order
> to maintain maximum funding,, staffing and place in the small agency
> pecking order, we had to please the Boss, the Legislature.
> In crude terms, we had to prostitute ourselves. While I have always
> loved the work, the problem solving, the developing ways to enable our
> clients to trust, and to believe in themselves, I did not enjoy
> dealing with the Legislature. But like a good prostitute, I learned
> to give them just what they wanted.
> Most of our employees never dealt with the "Boss", the Legislature.
> It made me shake my head to listen to the pompous staff members who
> felt that they must be seen as the most important persons they
> believed they were. After hearing the VRC's tell the support staff
> that they, the VRC's were Professionals, and deserved the respect of
> the clerical folks, I suggested to them that they begin referring to
> themselves as Professional Support Providers. All of the jockeying
> that went on within the Department was a waste of time and energy. To
> our Boss, the Legislature, we were all seen as all of the negative
> beliefs that a group of small businessmen and doctors and lawyers
> believed state employees to be. Of course, they the Legislature was
> an exception.
> I do believe attitudes among staff grew more positive under Shirley.
> me. I did not like Schmoozing the Legislature but it was simply what
> we had to do to advance our clients needs.
> We like to engage in word games, like telling folks that we are Middle
> Class, as opposed to Working Class, even though our plumber makes more
> money. But don't you really think that many of us exhibit all of the
> attributes of a Prostitute?
>
> Carl Jarvis
>
>
>
> On 4/26/15, Charles Crawford <CCrawford@rcn.com> wrote:
>> Hi Carl and all,
>>
>> Upon reading your message, I had two immediate thoughts. First I would
>> hardly think of Shirley Smith who I knew and greatly respected as a
>> Director
>> simply using Blind Services as a stepping stone. If you believe that,
> then
>> I would ask you to rethink what you are saying. On the matter of
>> everyone
>> basically prostituting ourselves in the sense that we expend our bodies
> and
>> minds for whatever we do, is an interesting perception, but somehow does
>> not
>> feel right to me. If your point is that whatever we do, we ultimately
>> expend all we have including our bodies and minds, then I suppose as an
>> abstraction, that is true. However, I need to ask you if you would not
>> do
>> it all over again if given the choice? I imagine you would say with
>> respect
>> to working with blind folks and maybe not the other stuff. Why? Would
>> they
>> both not be prostituting yourself? While literally yes, and yet one in
> the
>> service of others is more than simply prostitution, but rather giving in
>> the
>> service of a noble goal. A difference without a distinction? Perhaps,
> but
>> nonetheless a meaningful one.
>>
>> Charlie Crawford.
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Blind-Democracy [mailto:blind-democracy-bounces@octothorp.org] On
>> Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
>> Sent: 26 April 2015 10:14
>> To: Blind Democracy Discussion List
>> Subject: Re: I've Been a Prostitute for Almost 10 Years-Here's How I Feel
>> About It
>>
>> If we move away from Capitalism and stop using money for the exchange
>> of services and goods, then there would be no more prostitution. It
>> would then become Free Love. Let's hear it for Free Love!!!!
>> In our capitalist world there are many prostitutes. In fact, most of
>> us fall into that category. We sell our brains or our bodies for
>> financial gain. Isn't that all a hooker is doing? I worked for 8
>> years in a drapery sweat shop. Trust me, it took its toll. I can
>> still remember dashing this way and that in an attempt to satisfy the
>> whims of Mister Silver. When I sat down to dinner I realized one day
>> that I was shoveling my food into my mouth rapid fire. I had to work
>> at slowing down. When things went right, Mister Silver stood and took
>> the bows. When things went bad, Mister Silver stood and screamed at
>> us underlings. My years with the Department of Services for the Blind
>> have taken their toll, too. Some staff simply gave in to the
>> mediocrity and collected their paychecks. But for those of us who
>> cared about our clients, there was constant stress. And always was
>> the threat of a reduction in force, or a ten percent cut in funds, or
>> some fancy pants new director who was using the small department for a
>> stepping stone to bigger things. As an "independent provider",
>> serving older blind and low vision folks, we are under all of the same
>> stresses. And very little of it is based on the clients needs. It is
>> driven by Capitalistic values. More bang for the buck! How I came to
>> hate those words. And still, understanding all of this, we continue
>> to prostitute ourselves in order to meet the desperate needs of our
>> clients. Being a life-long Prostitute is hard work. And the body
>> wears out. And the Spirit dims. Not as fast as that of the Hooker,
>> or the professional football player, but the scars are there.
>>
>> Carl Jarvis
>>
>> On 4/25/15, Roger Loran Bailey <rogerbailey81@aol.com> wrote:
>>> Of course each person's experience is unique. Nevertheless, what is
>>> perceived as a viable choice or an answer to a problem is likely to
>>> depend on one's surrounding culture or subculture. Regardless of whether
>>> one likes the taste or the smell or any other aspect of the experience
>>> as an individual if one lives in central Asia it is much more likely
>>> that one will consider the drinking of horse milk as a means of
>>> acquiring nourishment than will one who lives in North America.
>>>
>>> On 4/25/2015 9:25 AM, Alice Dampman Humel wrote:
>>>> I wouldn't be so sure about that. What the individual experiences on
>>>> his/her own flesh, upon his/her own psyche, emotions, feelings about
>>>> him/herself is different from watching or even being involved with
>>>> the experiences of other.
>>>> On Apr 24, 2015, at 8:25 PM, Roger Loran Bailey <rogerbailey81@aol.com
>>>> <mailto:rogerbailey81@aol.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I don't know about assassins, even though this may apply to them too,
>>>>> but the level of moral dilemma a first time prostitute experiences
>>>>> depends a lot on prior exposure to the profession. The woman who
>>>>> wrote the article that started this thread probably experienced more
>>>>> trauma over her first time than most prostitutes do. That is, if you
>>>>> grow up with prostitute neighbors and prostitute family members then
>>>>> prostitution is a very realistic career path and there may be no
>>>>> trauma at all the first time. That is, it is just a normal thing.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 4/24/2015 4:24 PM, ted chittenden wrote:
>>>>>> Charlie:
>>>>>> 1) While I've never been involved in the sex trade in any way, I
>>>>>> have never been involved in a committed relationship with a person
>>>>>> of the opposite or same sex either. Before you say how sorry you
>>>>>> feel for me, let me tell you that 99% of the time I actually like it
>>>>>> this way--I really don't have to worry about the concerns of another
>>>>>> when making decisions that will affect me personally.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2) While I've never knowlingly (how would I, a totally blind person,
>>>>>> know someone was a prostitute unless she told me?) met a person a
>>>>>> prostitute and have never read autobiographies or biographys of
>>>>>> prostitutes, I imagine that the same rule of thumb applies to
>>>>>> prostitutes as professional assassins. In the case of the latter,
>>>>>> what I have read in the past is that while the first assasination
>>>>>> was difficult and presented moral dilemmas for the person entering
>>>>>> this profession, subsequent assasinations proved to be much easier
>>>>>> to perform as the professional became more cold and calculating.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Ted Chittenden
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Every story has at least two sides if not more.
>>>>>> ---- Charles Crawford <CCrawford@RCN.com <mailto:CCrawford@RCN.com>>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Ted, Miriam, and all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think your view Ted, with respect to the legal status of
>>>>>> Prostitution is
>>>>>> most correct. On the matter of objections primarily arising from
>>>>>> religion,
>>>>>> I suppose that would be true since religion is the classic model for
>>>>>> dealing
>>>>>> with matters of interpersonal relationships. From that perspective,
>>>>>> I would
>>>>>> pretty much agree, and yet my view is basically that we all want our
>>>>>> bodies
>>>>>> to be safe and free of abuse. Hence, I cannot imagine that a
>>>>>> prostitute
>>>>>> would see the selling of her body as something she would immediately
>>>>>> choose
>>>>>> unless circumstances were to compel her to do so. Sure, occasional
>>>>>> sexual
>>>>>> relations for the sake of the pleasure derived from them, and absent
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> committed relationship with another person is understandable, if not
>>>>>> viewed
>>>>>> on moral grounds, however the sharing of bodies is an intimate
>>>>>> experience
>>>>>> and without the intimacy contained in a loving relationship, there is
>>>>>> something very important lost in the experience.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I hope my words make sense and while I do not condemn those who
>>>>>> choose to become Prostitutes, I feel sorry for what cost they pay in
>>>>>> not
>>>>>> having a committed loving relationship with another person.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Charlie Crawford.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Blind-Democracy [mailto:blind-democracy-bounces@octothorp.org]
>>>>>> On
>>>>>> Behalf Of ted chittenden
>>>>>> Sent: 23 April 2015 21:43
>>>>>> To: Blind Democracy Discussion List
>>>>>> Subject: RE: I've Been a Prostitute for Almost 10 Years-Here's How I
>>>>>> Feel
>>>>>> About It
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Miriam:
>>>>>> The biggest problem with decriminalizing, but not legalizing,
>>>>>> prostitution
>>>>>> is the inability to regulate something that is not considered
>>>>>> completely
>>>>>> legal. I should add that much of the stigma associated with
>>>>>> prostitution
>>>>>> comes from religion.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Ted Chittenden
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Every story has at least two sides if not more.
>>>>>> ---- Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net
>>>>>> <mailto:miriamvieni@optonline.net>> wrote:
>>>>>> Bob,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Did you read Chris Hedges'pieces on prostitution that I posted a few
>>>>>> weeks
>>>>>> ago? I'm in favor of de-criminalizing prostitution in the same way
>>>>>> that I'm
>>>>>> in favor of de-criminalizing all drug use. De-criminalizing means
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> people who engage in prostitution or drug use should not be punished
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> what they do. Legalizing is a separate step and the pros and cons
>>>>>> need to be
>>>>>> carefully looked at. If you see prostitution as a purely recreational
>>>>>> activity, then legalizing makes sense. Legalizing turns it into an
>>>>>> industry.
>>>>>> If you see prostitution as a recreational activity for men that is
>>>>>> essentially abusive to women, then turning it into a respecdtable
>>>>>> industry
>>>>>> seems less appealing. When a woman sells her body for a man's sexual
>>>>>> use,
>>>>>> she is risking physical harm because he may require some very unusual
>>>>>> activity on her part for his gratification. Even if the sexual
>>>>>> activity is
>>>>>> more mundane, the repetitive use of the most intimate parts of her
>>>>>> body, and
>>>>>> the play acting that is required on her part in order to satisfy her
>>>>>> customers, is rather different from washing floors or caring for
>>>>>> elderly
>>>>>> patients or doing sales work. I don't want to punish anyione who
>>>>>> feels that
>>>>>> she must do this kind of work in order to live the kind of life she
>>>>>> wants or
>>>>>> needs to live. But I do want to recognize that the work is
>>>>>> qualitatively
>>>>>> different from other work, even disgusting work like plucking dead
>>>>>> chickens
>>>>>> or cleaning toileet bowls.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Miriam
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Blind-Democracy [mailto:blind-democracy-bounces@octothorp.org]
>>>>>> On
>>>>>> Behalf Of Bob Hachey
>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2015 5:08 PM
>>>>>> To: 'Blind Democracy Discussion List'
>>>>>> Subject: RE: I've Been a Prostitute for Almost 10 Years-Here's How I
>>>>>> Feel
>>>>>> About It
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>> IT seems to me we've been down this road before. I'm going to take a
>>>>>> major
>>>>>> risk here and will probably draw some slings and arrows but here
>>>>>> goes.
>>>>>> It seems like all or most of the women on this list are dead set
>>>>>> against the
>>>>>> legalization of prostitution here in the States. I believe that the
>>>>>> negative
>>>>>> aspects of prostitution such as exploitation and abuse occur mainly
>>>>>> because
>>>>>> prostitution is illegal. Legalization means putting an end to street
>>>>>> pimps.
>>>>>> Legalization means that you only serve those customers you choose to
>>>>>> serve.
>>>>>> I feel badly for celine, not because she is a prostitute but because
>>>>>> of the
>>>>>> terrible treatment she has received from others when they find out
>>>>>> what she
>>>>>> does. AS a nation, we are surely screwed up sexually. I wonder if
>>>>>> celine
>>>>>> would be treated better in a place like New Zealand where
>>>>>> prostitution is
>>>>>> legal? I see Celine as a free spirit and we'd all be better off if
>>>>>> more of
>>>>>> us acted as she does. She has found a vocation which she enjoys and
>>>>>> it gives
>>>>>> her a good living. Why should others judge her so harshly? I wonder
>>>>>> if she
>>>>>> gets this treatment from men as well as women? IF not, what does
>>>>>> that tell
>>>>>> us about women? I will not try to answer that question now.
>>>>>> Bob Hachey
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Blind-Democracy mailing list
>>>>>> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org <mailto:Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org>
>>>>>> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Blind-Democracy mailing list
>>>>>> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
>>>>>> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Blind-Democracy mailing list
>>>>>> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
>>>>>> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Blind-Democracy mailing list
>>>>>> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
>>>>>> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Ted Chittenden
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Every story has at least two sides if not more.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Blind-Democracy mailing list
>>>>>> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
>>>>>> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Blind-Democracy mailing list
>>>>> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org <mailto:Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org>
>>>>> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Blind-Democracy mailing list
>>>> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
>>>> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Blind-Democracy mailing list
>> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
>> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Blind-Democracy mailing list
>> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
>> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Blind-Democracy mailing list
> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>
> _______________________________________________
> Blind-Democracy mailing list
> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>
My objective in using the word, Prostitute, was to engage in
conversation over whether or not all of us are selling our bodies,
minds and often, our Souls under Capitalism. not to get folks backs
up.
So often we single out someone or something we disagree with and fuss
and fret over how we can rid society of such a blight. But too often
we are simply focused on the "underside" of our very society.
We could pick on many comparrisons, but Prostitution seems to get
folks dander up. I always tried to work Sex into my "Attitudes Class"
in the Orientation and Training Center. Students who would normally
nod off, leaned forward the entire class, waiting for the subject to
come around. So we're facinated with Sex. And it's a good thing,
too. Sex is what makes the world go round. Not Love.
I mean, I love my children, but we're not going to increase the
Earth's population.
Somehow we've developed a love/hate relationship with Sex. We all go
about having sex, at least I hope we all do, but when a person decides
to sell their most prized possession, we jump around demanding that
our authorities do something. Our Pillars of our community, the
successful business men and women, our Church officials, and in fact,
all of our role models turn on the humble Whore as if she/he were from
another world. We must stop this peddling on our street corners,
comes the indignant cry. And yet we are just fine with the folks
selling themselves as workers in the Fast Food Chains. The Tellers in
our banks. The small business person, selling their wares from open
store fronts on our public streets. Some of us love our prostituting,
and some of us hate it. But we all do it because it is how we
survive.
The reason we draw back from the word, Prostitute, is because deep
down we know that this is what we are. Rather than using another term
than prostitute, we would be better to admit that this is how our
Ruling Class has set the conditions. Perhaps we should change the
name of Wall Street to, Pimp Street.
And all of us are caught up in this strange method of Prostituting
ourselves. We count ourselves as being successful if we rise up to a
place where we have folks working for us. Now we are not only
Prostituting ourselves to those above us, but we are forcing others to
do the same for us.
Finally, just because this is the world as we know it, and just
because someone will say that this is the most efficient method of
organizing our world, does not make it right. Nor does it make it the
only method.
Carl Jarvis
<CCrawford@rcn.com> wrote:
> Hi Carl,
>
> Thanks for responding and one way to perceive this problem is to
> remove the term prostituting ourselves and replacing it with working hard
> or
> some other phrase that means we expend our talents or something like that.
> Looking at the subject from that perspective, we then can either work at
> what we believe in as worth doing, or simply earn a paycheck. Somehow that
> sounds better to me than the term prostituting ourselves that sounds
> pejorative to me. Smile.
>
> Charlie.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Blind-Democracy [mailto:blind-democracy-bounces@octothorp.org] On
> Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
> Sent: 26 April 2015 19:17
> To: Blind Democracy Discussion List
> Subject: I've Been a Prostitute for Almost 10 Years-Here's How I Feel About
> It
>
> No doubt about it, Charlie. And by the way, Shirley tells me to say
> "hello" back to you. She always speaks highly of you. Shirley Smith
> is not the person I had in mind. But I worked under a Gaggle of
> Directors over the years. Jerome Dunham, Ken Hopkins, Bill James,
> Paul DzieDzic, Shirley Smith, Bill Palmer, and a couple of interim
> directors.
> In my personal opinion, some of these folks felt the job was very
> comfortable, at least two saw it as a stepping stone. Only two,
> Shirley Smith and Ken Hopkins believed that blindness was not a deal
> breaker.
> Ken became Chief of the Office of Services for the blind, and when we
> passed the Commission Bill, he was hired as the first director. In
> his six years at the helm, Ken brought the Commission from an inept,
> beleaguered agency, to an effective program. Without going into it,
> the 1979-1980 organizational differences between the Washington Blind
> and the NFB Office carried over into the Commission. Ken resigned and
> went off to California to McGeorge, and his law degree. It was not
> until 1987 that Shirley took on the Directorship of what had become
> the Department of Services for the Blind. As Deputy Director, Shirley
> had been my boss from the first day she came aboard in 1982. I was
> director of the Orientation and Training Center. When Shirley was
> appointed Director, she asked me to be her assistant director for
> field services.
> We worked closely, and Shirley never hid the fact that I served as her
> Expert in Blindness. I was always impressed at how quickly Shirley
> understood the issues and problems faced by blind people. I've always
> considered it to have been a rare opportunity and a privilege to have
> served under her. So, Shirley and I, along with all employees of the
> Department, served at the pleasure of our state legislature. In order
> to maintain maximum funding,, staffing and place in the small agency
> pecking order, we had to please the Boss, the Legislature.
> In crude terms, we had to prostitute ourselves. While I have always
> loved the work, the problem solving, the developing ways to enable our
> clients to trust, and to believe in themselves, I did not enjoy
> dealing with the Legislature. But like a good prostitute, I learned
> to give them just what they wanted.
> Most of our employees never dealt with the "Boss", the Legislature.
> It made me shake my head to listen to the pompous staff members who
> felt that they must be seen as the most important persons they
> believed they were. After hearing the VRC's tell the support staff
> that they, the VRC's were Professionals, and deserved the respect of
> the clerical folks, I suggested to them that they begin referring to
> themselves as Professional Support Providers. All of the jockeying
> that went on within the Department was a waste of time and energy. To
> our Boss, the Legislature, we were all seen as all of the negative
> beliefs that a group of small businessmen and doctors and lawyers
> believed state employees to be. Of course, they the Legislature was
> an exception.
> I do believe attitudes among staff grew more positive under Shirley.
> me. I did not like Schmoozing the Legislature but it was simply what
> we had to do to advance our clients needs.
> We like to engage in word games, like telling folks that we are Middle
> Class, as opposed to Working Class, even though our plumber makes more
> money. But don't you really think that many of us exhibit all of the
> attributes of a Prostitute?
>
> Carl Jarvis
>
>
>
> On 4/26/15, Charles Crawford <CCrawford@rcn.com> wrote:
>> Hi Carl and all,
>>
>> Upon reading your message, I had two immediate thoughts. First I would
>> hardly think of Shirley Smith who I knew and greatly respected as a
>> Director
>> simply using Blind Services as a stepping stone. If you believe that,
> then
>> I would ask you to rethink what you are saying. On the matter of
>> everyone
>> basically prostituting ourselves in the sense that we expend our bodies
> and
>> minds for whatever we do, is an interesting perception, but somehow does
>> not
>> feel right to me. If your point is that whatever we do, we ultimately
>> expend all we have including our bodies and minds, then I suppose as an
>> abstraction, that is true. However, I need to ask you if you would not
>> do
>> it all over again if given the choice? I imagine you would say with
>> respect
>> to working with blind folks and maybe not the other stuff. Why? Would
>> they
>> both not be prostituting yourself? While literally yes, and yet one in
> the
>> service of others is more than simply prostitution, but rather giving in
>> the
>> service of a noble goal. A difference without a distinction? Perhaps,
> but
>> nonetheless a meaningful one.
>>
>> Charlie Crawford.
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Blind-Democracy [mailto:blind-democracy-bounces@octothorp.org] On
>> Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
>> Sent: 26 April 2015 10:14
>> To: Blind Democracy Discussion List
>> Subject: Re: I've Been a Prostitute for Almost 10 Years-Here's How I Feel
>> About It
>>
>> If we move away from Capitalism and stop using money for the exchange
>> of services and goods, then there would be no more prostitution. It
>> would then become Free Love. Let's hear it for Free Love!!!!
>> In our capitalist world there are many prostitutes. In fact, most of
>> us fall into that category. We sell our brains or our bodies for
>> financial gain. Isn't that all a hooker is doing? I worked for 8
>> years in a drapery sweat shop. Trust me, it took its toll. I can
>> still remember dashing this way and that in an attempt to satisfy the
>> whims of Mister Silver. When I sat down to dinner I realized one day
>> that I was shoveling my food into my mouth rapid fire. I had to work
>> at slowing down. When things went right, Mister Silver stood and took
>> the bows. When things went bad, Mister Silver stood and screamed at
>> us underlings. My years with the Department of Services for the Blind
>> have taken their toll, too. Some staff simply gave in to the
>> mediocrity and collected their paychecks. But for those of us who
>> cared about our clients, there was constant stress. And always was
>> the threat of a reduction in force, or a ten percent cut in funds, or
>> some fancy pants new director who was using the small department for a
>> stepping stone to bigger things. As an "independent provider",
>> serving older blind and low vision folks, we are under all of the same
>> stresses. And very little of it is based on the clients needs. It is
>> driven by Capitalistic values. More bang for the buck! How I came to
>> hate those words. And still, understanding all of this, we continue
>> to prostitute ourselves in order to meet the desperate needs of our
>> clients. Being a life-long Prostitute is hard work. And the body
>> wears out. And the Spirit dims. Not as fast as that of the Hooker,
>> or the professional football player, but the scars are there.
>>
>> Carl Jarvis
>>
>> On 4/25/15, Roger Loran Bailey <rogerbailey81@aol.com> wrote:
>>> Of course each person's experience is unique. Nevertheless, what is
>>> perceived as a viable choice or an answer to a problem is likely to
>>> depend on one's surrounding culture or subculture. Regardless of whether
>>> one likes the taste or the smell or any other aspect of the experience
>>> as an individual if one lives in central Asia it is much more likely
>>> that one will consider the drinking of horse milk as a means of
>>> acquiring nourishment than will one who lives in North America.
>>>
>>> On 4/25/2015 9:25 AM, Alice Dampman Humel wrote:
>>>> I wouldn't be so sure about that. What the individual experiences on
>>>> his/her own flesh, upon his/her own psyche, emotions, feelings about
>>>> him/herself is different from watching or even being involved with
>>>> the experiences of other.
>>>> On Apr 24, 2015, at 8:25 PM, Roger Loran Bailey <rogerbailey81@aol.com
>>>> <mailto:rogerbailey81@aol.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I don't know about assassins, even though this may apply to them too,
>>>>> but the level of moral dilemma a first time prostitute experiences
>>>>> depends a lot on prior exposure to the profession. The woman who
>>>>> wrote the article that started this thread probably experienced more
>>>>> trauma over her first time than most prostitutes do. That is, if you
>>>>> grow up with prostitute neighbors and prostitute family members then
>>>>> prostitution is a very realistic career path and there may be no
>>>>> trauma at all the first time. That is, it is just a normal thing.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 4/24/2015 4:24 PM, ted chittenden wrote:
>>>>>> Charlie:
>>>>>> 1) While I've never been involved in the sex trade in any way, I
>>>>>> have never been involved in a committed relationship with a person
>>>>>> of the opposite or same sex either. Before you say how sorry you
>>>>>> feel for me, let me tell you that 99% of the time I actually like it
>>>>>> this way--I really don't have to worry about the concerns of another
>>>>>> when making decisions that will affect me personally.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2) While I've never knowlingly (how would I, a totally blind person,
>>>>>> know someone was a prostitute unless she told me?) met a person a
>>>>>> prostitute and have never read autobiographies or biographys of
>>>>>> prostitutes, I imagine that the same rule of thumb applies to
>>>>>> prostitutes as professional assassins. In the case of the latter,
>>>>>> what I have read in the past is that while the first assasination
>>>>>> was difficult and presented moral dilemmas for the person entering
>>>>>> this profession, subsequent assasinations proved to be much easier
>>>>>> to perform as the professional became more cold and calculating.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Ted Chittenden
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Every story has at least two sides if not more.
>>>>>> ---- Charles Crawford <CCrawford@RCN.com <mailto:CCrawford@RCN.com>>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Ted, Miriam, and all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think your view Ted, with respect to the legal status of
>>>>>> Prostitution is
>>>>>> most correct. On the matter of objections primarily arising from
>>>>>> religion,
>>>>>> I suppose that would be true since religion is the classic model for
>>>>>> dealing
>>>>>> with matters of interpersonal relationships. From that perspective,
>>>>>> I would
>>>>>> pretty much agree, and yet my view is basically that we all want our
>>>>>> bodies
>>>>>> to be safe and free of abuse. Hence, I cannot imagine that a
>>>>>> prostitute
>>>>>> would see the selling of her body as something she would immediately
>>>>>> choose
>>>>>> unless circumstances were to compel her to do so. Sure, occasional
>>>>>> sexual
>>>>>> relations for the sake of the pleasure derived from them, and absent
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> committed relationship with another person is understandable, if not
>>>>>> viewed
>>>>>> on moral grounds, however the sharing of bodies is an intimate
>>>>>> experience
>>>>>> and without the intimacy contained in a loving relationship, there is
>>>>>> something very important lost in the experience.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I hope my words make sense and while I do not condemn those who
>>>>>> choose to become Prostitutes, I feel sorry for what cost they pay in
>>>>>> not
>>>>>> having a committed loving relationship with another person.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Charlie Crawford.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Blind-Democracy [mailto:blind-democracy-bounces@octothorp.org]
>>>>>> On
>>>>>> Behalf Of ted chittenden
>>>>>> Sent: 23 April 2015 21:43
>>>>>> To: Blind Democracy Discussion List
>>>>>> Subject: RE: I've Been a Prostitute for Almost 10 Years-Here's How I
>>>>>> Feel
>>>>>> About It
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Miriam:
>>>>>> The biggest problem with decriminalizing, but not legalizing,
>>>>>> prostitution
>>>>>> is the inability to regulate something that is not considered
>>>>>> completely
>>>>>> legal. I should add that much of the stigma associated with
>>>>>> prostitution
>>>>>> comes from religion.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Ted Chittenden
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Every story has at least two sides if not more.
>>>>>> ---- Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net
>>>>>> <mailto:miriamvieni@optonline.net>> wrote:
>>>>>> Bob,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Did you read Chris Hedges'pieces on prostitution that I posted a few
>>>>>> weeks
>>>>>> ago? I'm in favor of de-criminalizing prostitution in the same way
>>>>>> that I'm
>>>>>> in favor of de-criminalizing all drug use. De-criminalizing means
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> people who engage in prostitution or drug use should not be punished
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> what they do. Legalizing is a separate step and the pros and cons
>>>>>> need to be
>>>>>> carefully looked at. If you see prostitution as a purely recreational
>>>>>> activity, then legalizing makes sense. Legalizing turns it into an
>>>>>> industry.
>>>>>> If you see prostitution as a recreational activity for men that is
>>>>>> essentially abusive to women, then turning it into a respecdtable
>>>>>> industry
>>>>>> seems less appealing. When a woman sells her body for a man's sexual
>>>>>> use,
>>>>>> she is risking physical harm because he may require some very unusual
>>>>>> activity on her part for his gratification. Even if the sexual
>>>>>> activity is
>>>>>> more mundane, the repetitive use of the most intimate parts of her
>>>>>> body, and
>>>>>> the play acting that is required on her part in order to satisfy her
>>>>>> customers, is rather different from washing floors or caring for
>>>>>> elderly
>>>>>> patients or doing sales work. I don't want to punish anyione who
>>>>>> feels that
>>>>>> she must do this kind of work in order to live the kind of life she
>>>>>> wants or
>>>>>> needs to live. But I do want to recognize that the work is
>>>>>> qualitatively
>>>>>> different from other work, even disgusting work like plucking dead
>>>>>> chickens
>>>>>> or cleaning toileet bowls.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Miriam
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Blind-Democracy [mailto:blind-democracy-bounces@octothorp.org]
>>>>>> On
>>>>>> Behalf Of Bob Hachey
>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2015 5:08 PM
>>>>>> To: 'Blind Democracy Discussion List'
>>>>>> Subject: RE: I've Been a Prostitute for Almost 10 Years-Here's How I
>>>>>> Feel
>>>>>> About It
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>> IT seems to me we've been down this road before. I'm going to take a
>>>>>> major
>>>>>> risk here and will probably draw some slings and arrows but here
>>>>>> goes.
>>>>>> It seems like all or most of the women on this list are dead set
>>>>>> against the
>>>>>> legalization of prostitution here in the States. I believe that the
>>>>>> negative
>>>>>> aspects of prostitution such as exploitation and abuse occur mainly
>>>>>> because
>>>>>> prostitution is illegal. Legalization means putting an end to street
>>>>>> pimps.
>>>>>> Legalization means that you only serve those customers you choose to
>>>>>> serve.
>>>>>> I feel badly for celine, not because she is a prostitute but because
>>>>>> of the
>>>>>> terrible treatment she has received from others when they find out
>>>>>> what she
>>>>>> does. AS a nation, we are surely screwed up sexually. I wonder if
>>>>>> celine
>>>>>> would be treated better in a place like New Zealand where
>>>>>> prostitution is
>>>>>> legal? I see Celine as a free spirit and we'd all be better off if
>>>>>> more of
>>>>>> us acted as she does. She has found a vocation which she enjoys and
>>>>>> it gives
>>>>>> her a good living. Why should others judge her so harshly? I wonder
>>>>>> if she
>>>>>> gets this treatment from men as well as women? IF not, what does
>>>>>> that tell
>>>>>> us about women? I will not try to answer that question now.
>>>>>> Bob Hachey
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Blind-Democracy mailing list
>>>>>> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org <mailto:Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org>
>>>>>> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Blind-Democracy mailing list
>>>>>> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
>>>>>> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Blind-Democracy mailing list
>>>>>> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
>>>>>> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Blind-Democracy mailing list
>>>>>> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
>>>>>> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Ted Chittenden
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Every story has at least two sides if not more.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Blind-Democracy mailing list
>>>>>> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
>>>>>> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Blind-Democracy mailing list
>>>>> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org <mailto:Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org>
>>>>> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Blind-Democracy mailing list
>>>> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
>>>> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Blind-Democracy mailing list
>> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
>> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Blind-Democracy mailing list
>> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
>> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Blind-Democracy mailing list
> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>
> _______________________________________________
> Blind-Democracy mailing list
> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>
Saturday, April 25, 2015
Prostituting Ourselves
Like a man running for public office, I both agree and disagree with you, Ted.
If this current system was ever "regulated capitalism", it has become
Corporate Capitalism, and threatens to tip the balance to a place
where it will become a Corporate Empire.
We are at a point where the individual entrepreneur cannot survive.
Many folks place the blame on government over-regulation. But on
closer examination it can be seen that the laws and regulations are
becoming more and more favorable to the Corporations. Big government
is not the problem. Corporate control of government is what is
destroying the part of the Working Class we like to call the Middle
Class. Fewer actual human persons are having a say in their
government, while the Corporate Persons are sucking up all that is
around them. Not to make too close a comparison to the last years of
the Roman Empire, but as the independent citizens were forced into
servitude, and those who benefited became fewer in number and wealthy
beyond belief, the Empire could not gather enough loyal defenders
among its remaining Freemen. It relied more and more on Mercenaries.
Remember, Greed never learns to compromise. Greed's bottom line is
total profit. Like the cancer it is, Greed will always grow to a
place where it destroys itself.
I agree that no form of government has yet been developed which would
protect and promote All people. But I do believe we can work toward a
time when a greater number of our people are involved in the process.
First, in order to even begin moving in that direction, a total
reformation of Human Nature must be undertaken. And that could be the
deal breaker.
But hey, what do we have to lose?
Carl Jarvis
On 4/25/15, ted chittenden <tchittenden@cox.net> wrote:
> Carl:
> While I agree with much of your analysis, I think it should be pointed out
> that no system developed by humans has to date made the working and
> nonworking lives of some a drudgery, to say the least. And the whole truth
> is that, in this regard, regulated capitalism has actually done a better job
> of serving human needs than is recognized on this list.
>
> Marxism certainly doesn't do it. While I can already hear the calls of Roger
> and others on this subject, the fact is that even the nominally Marxist
> countries started out with the intention of being fully Marxist. However, as
> their leaders moved forward with their planned economies and rapid
> industrialization, they faced opposition from the very proletariats they
> were attempting to save. The result was that many people in the former
> Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China, Cuba, and Venezuela, to name
> some, were imprisoned for failing to adequately support the system without
> the expectation of return.
>
> What regulated capitalism has done is that it has allowed people to control
> their own lives by owning and operating businesses that were (mostly) under
> their control. This control, with some exceptions, allowed for these people
> to hire and fire other human beings at will and, to a great extent, control
> the on-the-job lives of other human beings.
>
> I am not being satirical here. The desire to control the behavior of other
> human beings is very much a part of all of us and is an extension of us
> trying to control our own lives and the worlds in which we operate. So I
> will continue to support regulated capitalism even in the face of criticisms
> from other list members.
> --
> Ted Chittenden
>
> Every story has at least two sides if not more.
> ---- Carl Jarvis <carjar82@gmail.com> wrote:
> The ramble I'd started, took a notion and went off somewhere by
> itself. So if it wound up on the list, please excuse it. And my body
> is still consumed by some alien bug, providing me with lots of deep
> hacking coughing and a fierce pain across the eyes. What a way to end
> a very relaxing and pleasant vacation.
> I know that the subject was Prostitutes, but in a broader sense,
> doesn't our corporate capitalistic system force all of us to be
> Prostitutes? Whether we enjoy our particular work, aren't we still
> being screwed?
> Perhaps there are some on this list who do not have to answer to a
> "higher power" for their sustenance, but most of us are "Owned" by
> others. Studies have shown that most Americans are not satisfied with
> their station in life, the work they are forced to do, where they must
> live, the people they have married, and on and on. So Prostitutes fit
> right in. If the majority don't like their work. We can write books
> on why people do not like their lot in life, but continue going along
> day by day. The question is, would a different system give more of us
> the ability to move into a place that is more satisfying to us? Our
> Corporate Capitalistic System is most certainly not working for most
> of us Working Class and Lower Class Americans. For starters, we might
> find life more meaningful and even more enjoyable, if we were involved
> in the planning and decision making part of our work. Same is true of
> our personal lives.
> While I enjoy my work as a rehab teacher, I have no say in how our
> contract is put together. We either sign it or look for something
> else to do. At 80 years of age, I've come to a place where I no
> longer frustrate myself fighting to change this need of my "superiors"
> to control me. I simply sign the damn thing and we go about doing
> what we think is needed for our clients. In that sense we are no
> longer owned by the company. But we have not changed the system. We
> live in a world that is built upon control. And the method taught in
> controlling how we control others, is to use negative reinforcement.
> Trashing. Put downs. Belittling others.
> No wonder the majority of us are dissatisfied with our lot in life.
> And no wonder many of us go through life feeling very much like
> prostitutes.
> Carl Jarvis
>
> On 4/25/15, Alice Dampman Humel <alicedh@verizon.net> wrote:
>> I wouldn't be so sure about that. What the individual experiences on
>> his/her
>> own flesh, upon his/her own psyche, emotions, feelings about him/herself
>> is
>> different from watching or even being involved with the experiences of
>> other.
>> On Apr 24, 2015, at 8:25 PM, Roger Loran Bailey <rogerbailey81@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't know about assassins, even though this may apply to them too,
>>> but
>>> the level of moral dilemma a first time prostitute experiences depends
>>> a
>>> lot on prior exposure to the profession. The woman who wrote the article
>>> that started this thread probably experienced more trauma over her first
>>> time than most prostitutes do. That is, if you grow up with prostitute
>>> neighbors and prostitute family members then prostitution is a very
>>> realistic career path and there may be no trauma at all the first time.
>>> That is, it is just a normal thing.
>>>
>>> On 4/24/2015 4:24 PM, ted chittenden wrote:
>>>> Charlie:
>>>> 1) While I've never been involved in the sex trade in any way, I have
>>>> never been involved in a committed relationship with a person of the
>>>> opposite or same sex either. Before you say how sorry you feel for me,
>>>> let me tell you that 99% of the time I actually like it this way--I
>>>> really don't have to worry about the concerns of another when making
>>>> decisions that will affect me personally.
>>>>
>>>> 2) While I've never knowlingly (how would I, a totally blind person,
>>>> know
>>>> someone was a prostitute unless she told me?) met a person a prostitute
>>>> and have never read autobiographies or biographys of prostitutes, I
>>>> imagine that the same rule of thumb applies to prostitutes as
>>>> professional assassins. In the case of the latter, what I have read in
>>>> the past is that while the first assasination was difficult and
>>>> presented
>>>> moral dilemmas for the person entering this profession, subsequent
>>>> assasinations proved to be much easier to perform as the professional
>>>> became more cold and calculating.
>>>> --
>>>> Ted Chittenden
>>>>
>>>> Every story has at least two sides if not more.
>>>> ---- Charles Crawford <CCrawford@RCN.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi Ted, Miriam, and all,
>>>>
>>>> I think your view Ted, with respect to the legal status of Prostitution
>>>> is
>>>> most correct. On the matter of objections primarily arising from
>>>> religion,
>>>> I suppose that would be true since religion is the classic model for
>>>> dealing
>>>> with matters of interpersonal relationships. From that perspective, I
>>>> would
>>>> pretty much agree, and yet my view is basically that we all want our
>>>> bodies
>>>> to be safe and free of abuse. Hence, I cannot imagine that a
>>>> prostitute
>>>> would see the selling of her body as something she would immediately
>>>> choose
>>>> unless circumstances were to compel her to do so. Sure, occasional
>>>> sexual
>>>> relations for the sake of the pleasure derived from them, and absent a
>>>> committed relationship with another person is understandable, if not
>>>> viewed
>>>> on moral grounds, however the sharing of bodies is an intimate
>>>> experience
>>>> and without the intimacy contained in a loving relationship, there is
>>>> something very important lost in the experience.
>>>>
>>>> I hope my words make sense and while I do not condemn those who
>>>> choose to become Prostitutes, I feel sorry for what cost they pay in
>>>> not
>>>> having a committed loving relationship with another person.
>>>>
>>>> Charlie Crawford.
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Blind-Democracy [mailto:blind-democracy-bounces@octothorp.org] On
>>>> Behalf Of ted chittenden
>>>> Sent: 23 April 2015 21:43
>>>> To: Blind Democracy Discussion List
>>>> Subject: RE: I've Been a Prostitute for Almost 10 Years-Here's How I
>>>> Feel
>>>> About It
>>>>
>>>> Miriam:
>>>> The biggest problem with decriminalizing, but not legalizing,
>>>> prostitution
>>>> is the inability to regulate something that is not considered
>>>> completely
>>>> legal. I should add that much of the stigma associated with
>>>> prostitution
>>>> comes from religion.
>>>> --
>>>> Ted Chittenden
>>>>
>>>> Every story has at least two sides if not more.
>>>> ---- Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>> Bob,
>>>>
>>>> Did you read Chris Hedges'pieces on prostitution that I posted a few
>>>> weeks
>>>> ago? I'm in favor of de-criminalizing prostitution in the same way that
>>>> I'm
>>>> in favor of de-criminalizing all drug use. De-criminalizing means that
>>>> people who engage in prostitution or drug use should not be punished
>>>> for
>>>> what they do. Legalizing is a separate step and the pros and cons need
>>>> to
>>>> be
>>>> carefully looked at. If you see prostitution as a purely recreational
>>>> activity, then legalizing makes sense. Legalizing turns it into an
>>>> industry.
>>>> If you see prostitution as a recreational activity for men that is
>>>> essentially abusive to women, then turning it into a respecdtable
>>>> industry
>>>> seems less appealing. When a woman sells her body for a man's sexual
>>>> use,
>>>> she is risking physical harm because he may require some very unusual
>>>> activity on her part for his gratification. Even if the sexual
>>>> activity
>>>> is
>>>> more mundane, the repetitive use of the most intimate parts of her
>>>> body,
>>>> and
>>>> the play acting that is required on her part in order to satisfy her
>>>> customers, is rather different from washing floors or caring for
>>>> elderly
>>>> patients or doing sales work. I don't want to punish anyione who feels
>>>> that
>>>> she must do this kind of work in order to live the kind of life she
>>>> wants
>>>> or
>>>> needs to live. But I do want to recognize that the work is
>>>> qualitatively
>>>> different from other work, even disgusting work like plucking dead
>>>> chickens
>>>> or cleaning toileet bowls.
>>>>
>>>> Miriam
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Blind-Democracy [mailto:blind-democracy-bounces@octothorp.org] On
>>>> Behalf Of Bob Hachey
>>>> Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2015 5:08 PM
>>>> To: 'Blind Democracy Discussion List'
>>>> Subject: RE: I've Been a Prostitute for Almost 10 Years-Here's How I
>>>> Feel
>>>> About It
>>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>> IT seems to me we've been down this road before. I'm going to take a
>>>> major
>>>> risk here and will probably draw some slings and arrows but here goes.
>>>> It seems like all or most of the women on this list are dead set
>>>> against
>>>> the
>>>> legalization of prostitution here in the States. I believe that the
>>>> negative
>>>> aspects of prostitution such as exploitation and abuse occur mainly
>>>> because
>>>> prostitution is illegal. Legalization means putting an end to street
>>>> pimps.
>>>> Legalization means that you only serve those customers you choose to
>>>> serve.
>>>> I feel badly for celine, not because she is a prostitute but because of
>>>> the
>>>> terrible treatment she has received from others when they find out what
>>>> she
>>>> does. AS a nation, we are surely screwed up sexually. I wonder if
>>>> celine
>>>> would be treated better in a place like New Zealand where prostitution
>>>> is
>>>> legal? I see Celine as a free spirit and we'd all be better off if more
>>>> of
>>>> us acted as she does. She has found a vocation which she enjoys and it
>>>> gives
>>>> her a good living. Why should others judge her so harshly? I wonder if
>>>> she
>>>> gets this treatment from men as well as women? IF not, what does that
>>>> tell
>>>> us about women? I will not try to answer that question now.
>>>> Bob Hachey
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Blind-Democracy mailing list
>>>> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
>>>> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Blind-Democracy mailing list
>>>> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
>>>> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Blind-Democracy mailing list
>>>> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
>>>> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Blind-Democracy mailing list
>>>> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
>>>> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Ted Chittenden
>>>>
>>>> Every story has at least two sides if not more.
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Blind-Democracy mailing list
>>>> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
>>>> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Blind-Democracy mailing list
>>> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
>>> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Blind-Democracy mailing list
> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Blind-Democracy mailing list
> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>
If this current system was ever "regulated capitalism", it has become
Corporate Capitalism, and threatens to tip the balance to a place
where it will become a Corporate Empire.
We are at a point where the individual entrepreneur cannot survive.
Many folks place the blame on government over-regulation. But on
closer examination it can be seen that the laws and regulations are
becoming more and more favorable to the Corporations. Big government
is not the problem. Corporate control of government is what is
destroying the part of the Working Class we like to call the Middle
Class. Fewer actual human persons are having a say in their
government, while the Corporate Persons are sucking up all that is
around them. Not to make too close a comparison to the last years of
the Roman Empire, but as the independent citizens were forced into
servitude, and those who benefited became fewer in number and wealthy
beyond belief, the Empire could not gather enough loyal defenders
among its remaining Freemen. It relied more and more on Mercenaries.
Remember, Greed never learns to compromise. Greed's bottom line is
total profit. Like the cancer it is, Greed will always grow to a
place where it destroys itself.
I agree that no form of government has yet been developed which would
protect and promote All people. But I do believe we can work toward a
time when a greater number of our people are involved in the process.
First, in order to even begin moving in that direction, a total
reformation of Human Nature must be undertaken. And that could be the
deal breaker.
But hey, what do we have to lose?
Carl Jarvis
On 4/25/15, ted chittenden <tchittenden@cox.net> wrote:
> Carl:
> While I agree with much of your analysis, I think it should be pointed out
> that no system developed by humans has to date made the working and
> nonworking lives of some a drudgery, to say the least. And the whole truth
> is that, in this regard, regulated capitalism has actually done a better job
> of serving human needs than is recognized on this list.
>
> Marxism certainly doesn't do it. While I can already hear the calls of Roger
> and others on this subject, the fact is that even the nominally Marxist
> countries started out with the intention of being fully Marxist. However, as
> their leaders moved forward with their planned economies and rapid
> industrialization, they faced opposition from the very proletariats they
> were attempting to save. The result was that many people in the former
> Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China, Cuba, and Venezuela, to name
> some, were imprisoned for failing to adequately support the system without
> the expectation of return.
>
> What regulated capitalism has done is that it has allowed people to control
> their own lives by owning and operating businesses that were (mostly) under
> their control. This control, with some exceptions, allowed for these people
> to hire and fire other human beings at will and, to a great extent, control
> the on-the-job lives of other human beings.
>
> I am not being satirical here. The desire to control the behavior of other
> human beings is very much a part of all of us and is an extension of us
> trying to control our own lives and the worlds in which we operate. So I
> will continue to support regulated capitalism even in the face of criticisms
> from other list members.
> --
> Ted Chittenden
>
> Every story has at least two sides if not more.
> ---- Carl Jarvis <carjar82@gmail.com> wrote:
> The ramble I'd started, took a notion and went off somewhere by
> itself. So if it wound up on the list, please excuse it. And my body
> is still consumed by some alien bug, providing me with lots of deep
> hacking coughing and a fierce pain across the eyes. What a way to end
> a very relaxing and pleasant vacation.
> I know that the subject was Prostitutes, but in a broader sense,
> doesn't our corporate capitalistic system force all of us to be
> Prostitutes? Whether we enjoy our particular work, aren't we still
> being screwed?
> Perhaps there are some on this list who do not have to answer to a
> "higher power" for their sustenance, but most of us are "Owned" by
> others. Studies have shown that most Americans are not satisfied with
> their station in life, the work they are forced to do, where they must
> live, the people they have married, and on and on. So Prostitutes fit
> right in. If the majority don't like their work. We can write books
> on why people do not like their lot in life, but continue going along
> day by day. The question is, would a different system give more of us
> the ability to move into a place that is more satisfying to us? Our
> Corporate Capitalistic System is most certainly not working for most
> of us Working Class and Lower Class Americans. For starters, we might
> find life more meaningful and even more enjoyable, if we were involved
> in the planning and decision making part of our work. Same is true of
> our personal lives.
> While I enjoy my work as a rehab teacher, I have no say in how our
> contract is put together. We either sign it or look for something
> else to do. At 80 years of age, I've come to a place where I no
> longer frustrate myself fighting to change this need of my "superiors"
> to control me. I simply sign the damn thing and we go about doing
> what we think is needed for our clients. In that sense we are no
> longer owned by the company. But we have not changed the system. We
> live in a world that is built upon control. And the method taught in
> controlling how we control others, is to use negative reinforcement.
> Trashing. Put downs. Belittling others.
> No wonder the majority of us are dissatisfied with our lot in life.
> And no wonder many of us go through life feeling very much like
> prostitutes.
> Carl Jarvis
>
> On 4/25/15, Alice Dampman Humel <alicedh@verizon.net> wrote:
>> I wouldn't be so sure about that. What the individual experiences on
>> his/her
>> own flesh, upon his/her own psyche, emotions, feelings about him/herself
>> is
>> different from watching or even being involved with the experiences of
>> other.
>> On Apr 24, 2015, at 8:25 PM, Roger Loran Bailey <rogerbailey81@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't know about assassins, even though this may apply to them too,
>>> but
>>> the level of moral dilemma a first time prostitute experiences depends
>>> a
>>> lot on prior exposure to the profession. The woman who wrote the article
>>> that started this thread probably experienced more trauma over her first
>>> time than most prostitutes do. That is, if you grow up with prostitute
>>> neighbors and prostitute family members then prostitution is a very
>>> realistic career path and there may be no trauma at all the first time.
>>> That is, it is just a normal thing.
>>>
>>> On 4/24/2015 4:24 PM, ted chittenden wrote:
>>>> Charlie:
>>>> 1) While I've never been involved in the sex trade in any way, I have
>>>> never been involved in a committed relationship with a person of the
>>>> opposite or same sex either. Before you say how sorry you feel for me,
>>>> let me tell you that 99% of the time I actually like it this way--I
>>>> really don't have to worry about the concerns of another when making
>>>> decisions that will affect me personally.
>>>>
>>>> 2) While I've never knowlingly (how would I, a totally blind person,
>>>> know
>>>> someone was a prostitute unless she told me?) met a person a prostitute
>>>> and have never read autobiographies or biographys of prostitutes, I
>>>> imagine that the same rule of thumb applies to prostitutes as
>>>> professional assassins. In the case of the latter, what I have read in
>>>> the past is that while the first assasination was difficult and
>>>> presented
>>>> moral dilemmas for the person entering this profession, subsequent
>>>> assasinations proved to be much easier to perform as the professional
>>>> became more cold and calculating.
>>>> --
>>>> Ted Chittenden
>>>>
>>>> Every story has at least two sides if not more.
>>>> ---- Charles Crawford <CCrawford@RCN.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi Ted, Miriam, and all,
>>>>
>>>> I think your view Ted, with respect to the legal status of Prostitution
>>>> is
>>>> most correct. On the matter of objections primarily arising from
>>>> religion,
>>>> I suppose that would be true since religion is the classic model for
>>>> dealing
>>>> with matters of interpersonal relationships. From that perspective, I
>>>> would
>>>> pretty much agree, and yet my view is basically that we all want our
>>>> bodies
>>>> to be safe and free of abuse. Hence, I cannot imagine that a
>>>> prostitute
>>>> would see the selling of her body as something she would immediately
>>>> choose
>>>> unless circumstances were to compel her to do so. Sure, occasional
>>>> sexual
>>>> relations for the sake of the pleasure derived from them, and absent a
>>>> committed relationship with another person is understandable, if not
>>>> viewed
>>>> on moral grounds, however the sharing of bodies is an intimate
>>>> experience
>>>> and without the intimacy contained in a loving relationship, there is
>>>> something very important lost in the experience.
>>>>
>>>> I hope my words make sense and while I do not condemn those who
>>>> choose to become Prostitutes, I feel sorry for what cost they pay in
>>>> not
>>>> having a committed loving relationship with another person.
>>>>
>>>> Charlie Crawford.
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Blind-Democracy [mailto:blind-democracy-bounces@octothorp.org] On
>>>> Behalf Of ted chittenden
>>>> Sent: 23 April 2015 21:43
>>>> To: Blind Democracy Discussion List
>>>> Subject: RE: I've Been a Prostitute for Almost 10 Years-Here's How I
>>>> Feel
>>>> About It
>>>>
>>>> Miriam:
>>>> The biggest problem with decriminalizing, but not legalizing,
>>>> prostitution
>>>> is the inability to regulate something that is not considered
>>>> completely
>>>> legal. I should add that much of the stigma associated with
>>>> prostitution
>>>> comes from religion.
>>>> --
>>>> Ted Chittenden
>>>>
>>>> Every story has at least two sides if not more.
>>>> ---- Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>> Bob,
>>>>
>>>> Did you read Chris Hedges'pieces on prostitution that I posted a few
>>>> weeks
>>>> ago? I'm in favor of de-criminalizing prostitution in the same way that
>>>> I'm
>>>> in favor of de-criminalizing all drug use. De-criminalizing means that
>>>> people who engage in prostitution or drug use should not be punished
>>>> for
>>>> what they do. Legalizing is a separate step and the pros and cons need
>>>> to
>>>> be
>>>> carefully looked at. If you see prostitution as a purely recreational
>>>> activity, then legalizing makes sense. Legalizing turns it into an
>>>> industry.
>>>> If you see prostitution as a recreational activity for men that is
>>>> essentially abusive to women, then turning it into a respecdtable
>>>> industry
>>>> seems less appealing. When a woman sells her body for a man's sexual
>>>> use,
>>>> she is risking physical harm because he may require some very unusual
>>>> activity on her part for his gratification. Even if the sexual
>>>> activity
>>>> is
>>>> more mundane, the repetitive use of the most intimate parts of her
>>>> body,
>>>> and
>>>> the play acting that is required on her part in order to satisfy her
>>>> customers, is rather different from washing floors or caring for
>>>> elderly
>>>> patients or doing sales work. I don't want to punish anyione who feels
>>>> that
>>>> she must do this kind of work in order to live the kind of life she
>>>> wants
>>>> or
>>>> needs to live. But I do want to recognize that the work is
>>>> qualitatively
>>>> different from other work, even disgusting work like plucking dead
>>>> chickens
>>>> or cleaning toileet bowls.
>>>>
>>>> Miriam
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Blind-Democracy [mailto:blind-democracy-bounces@octothorp.org] On
>>>> Behalf Of Bob Hachey
>>>> Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2015 5:08 PM
>>>> To: 'Blind Democracy Discussion List'
>>>> Subject: RE: I've Been a Prostitute for Almost 10 Years-Here's How I
>>>> Feel
>>>> About It
>>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>> IT seems to me we've been down this road before. I'm going to take a
>>>> major
>>>> risk here and will probably draw some slings and arrows but here goes.
>>>> It seems like all or most of the women on this list are dead set
>>>> against
>>>> the
>>>> legalization of prostitution here in the States. I believe that the
>>>> negative
>>>> aspects of prostitution such as exploitation and abuse occur mainly
>>>> because
>>>> prostitution is illegal. Legalization means putting an end to street
>>>> pimps.
>>>> Legalization means that you only serve those customers you choose to
>>>> serve.
>>>> I feel badly for celine, not because she is a prostitute but because of
>>>> the
>>>> terrible treatment she has received from others when they find out what
>>>> she
>>>> does. AS a nation, we are surely screwed up sexually. I wonder if
>>>> celine
>>>> would be treated better in a place like New Zealand where prostitution
>>>> is
>>>> legal? I see Celine as a free spirit and we'd all be better off if more
>>>> of
>>>> us acted as she does. She has found a vocation which she enjoys and it
>>>> gives
>>>> her a good living. Why should others judge her so harshly? I wonder if
>>>> she
>>>> gets this treatment from men as well as women? IF not, what does that
>>>> tell
>>>> us about women? I will not try to answer that question now.
>>>> Bob Hachey
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Blind-Democracy mailing list
>>>> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
>>>> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Blind-Democracy mailing list
>>>> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
>>>> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Blind-Democracy mailing list
>>>> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
>>>> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Blind-Democracy mailing list
>>>> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
>>>> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Ted Chittenden
>>>>
>>>> Every story has at least two sides if not more.
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Blind-Democracy mailing list
>>>> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
>>>> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Blind-Democracy mailing list
>>> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
>>> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Blind-Democracy mailing list
> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Blind-Democracy mailing list
> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)