Do we really support out Troops? This might say alot you didn't know.

quote:

Originally posted by EdEKit:
I saw the error you so eloquently pointed out, and took the position that since you were right, and I was wrong, I needed to change the premise.

Please don’t go out of your way by being acrimonious and insinuating that I was being eloquent in pointing out your mistake. I wasn’t doing that by any means. I was honestly and merely replying to your first post. When you made your reply to my post, that’s when I saw your point of what you were saying, and I said so. So, please know I wasn’t being sarcastic at all. I was just trying to understand what you meant and found both statements to be very different, almost oxymoronic of each other.

On your new reply, I agree with most of it and respect your opinions. Like you said in a previous post above, “Tom Paine's pen was mightier than the British Navy.” I wished more conflicts were settled this way. Maybe that’s just in a perfect world though.

ed,
I really admire and respect your explaination here. it sheds a new trail of thought many of us overlook. We as citizens in the US demean our own worth and value sometimes attempting to muddle thru looking at the "big picture", when infact there WOULD BE NO BIGGER PICTURE if it were not for every single one of us.

Thanks smurf
That was the point I was trying to drive home when I became too exuberant in my similie. Sorry is too small a word to express My humilation over the excess of the statement.

Once again the question of support for the troops has turned to the question of supporting Bush's War and the troops or oppossing Bush's War and the troops. The bond seems unbreakable in the minds of the supporters of the troops, because they accuse opponents of the war of automatically opposing the troops. Well, this is what the troops have to say about supporting the WAR. I will Side with them. http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/16616389.htm
This is NOT middle ground THIS IS TOTAL OPPOSITION TO THE AGGRESSION OF THE UNITED STATES. TOTAL, UNCOMPROMISING AND COMPLETE.
After the demonstration of expansionism at any cost provided by the Bush War on Iraq, I am surprised that Germany, Spain, France, Italy, Hungary, Poland, and all of the other NATO nations have not demanded an immediate withdrawal of American forces from their land. I am surprised that the American Public is not making the same demand. If the EU needs to defend itself, LET IT DEFEND ITSELF WITH ITS OWN PEOPLE AND CAPITAL. World War II ended in 1945, The Cold war ended in the 80's. Why are we still on foreigh soil with combat divisions?

BLA BLA BLA

quote:

Originally posted by Ubermensch:
BLA BLA BLA

Uber after checking a selecton of your recents postings, I have concluded that this is typical of them. consider yourself ignorable. You may get a resoned and responsive comment from me in the future, but until you are either responsive or able to contribute a thought beyound XXXXX is ok at three in the morning if you're drunk I will ignore you without blocking you, I can do that you know.

quote:

Originally posted by Fighting Illini:
Ed, so according to your earlier post about delivering unbiased information, is this by the way the same unbiased information CNN, NY Times, FoxNews, and other media distributes to the public in each's biased manner. Nothing on your posts would make anyone think you are anything but a liberal and a socialist. I don't think freedom and liberty can coexist with socialism.

Also, the majority of Americans and people in the Shoals area work just as hard as you have done but they do not feel the need to boast about themselves or claim they are better then anyone else.

Fighting Illini I think your comment is innacurate, in light of the liberty enjoyed by French, German, Sweedisn, and Swiss citizens.
Regarding the majority of Americans and people in the Shoals area work just as hard as you have done but they do not feel the need to boast about themselves or claim they are better then anyone else. I don't want to point out the obvious, but I said, in several posts, that YOU ALSO HAVE CONTRIBUTED MORE AS A CIVILIAN THAN I DID AS A SOLDIER.
Regarding my biases. I am pretty well pleased that working for a Republican who Became Governor of the State of Arizona, Jack Williams must be fair evidence that I was unbiased, since I am both a Democrat and a Liberal, and Jack knew That. I worked for him till the day he sold his interest in the radio station and became Governor and continued to work for his partners till they too sold their interest to a broadcast corporation. So, yes, I would say that I was unbiased in my reporting on politics and economics, and truthfull as well.

My comment is not inaccurate just a different view of liberty. It's obvious that you define liberty from a socialist as well as modern liberal perspective, which regards liberty as an equal distribution of power. I view liberty as an idividual who has the ability to act according to his own free will.

quote:

Originally posted by Fighting Illini:
My comment is not inaccurate just a different view of liberty. It's obvious that you define liberty from a socialist as well as modern liberal perspective, which regards liberty as an equal distribution of power. I view liberty as an idividual who has the ability to act according to his own free will.

As it happens, Fighting Ilini we are in total agreement with this statement "I view liberty as an idividual who has the ability to act according to his own free will." Our dispute is over the equal distribution of power. And you are correct, I do not believe that liberty is possible if one person has power over another who does not have equal power in return. That power can come from any source, including the restraint of the powerful in dealing with the weak.

That view is not overwhelmingly popular in a capitalist nation where people who work harder expect to be rewarded more than those who don't. Just because one has more wealth or power doesn't mean he doesn't respect someone not as wealthy or powerful.

quote:

Originally posted by Fighting Illini:
That view is not overwhelmingly popular in a capitalist nation where people who work harder expect to be rewarded more than those who don't. Just because one has more wealth or power doesn't mean he doesn't respect someone not as wealthy or powerful.

Isn't it a shame that meritocracy is a myth in our country and that the hegemonic order continues to marginalize people via systemic myths?

Could you please expand your thoughts? How is meritocracy a myth?

The fine line of difference between what you call the use of power and I call the restraint of power is hardly worth fighting over.

The only example of what's wrong with America today that I can think of is the huge power that rests in the Presidency and the manner in which Bush is using that power.

quote:

Originally posted by e:

quote:

Originally posted by Fighting Illini:
That view is not overwhelmingly popular in a capitalist nation where people who work harder expect to be rewarded more than those who don't. Just because one has more wealth or power doesn't mean he doesn't respect someone not as wealthy or powerful.

Isn't it a shame that meritocracy is a myth in our country and that the hegemonic order continues to marginalize people via systemic myths?

excellent response e and the nova presentation this week of the life of Percy Julian is proof that meritocracy is a myth, and that meriticracy is not always a myth. Imagine what Percy Julian could have accomplished if he had not started as the grandson of a slave.

Despite being the grandson of a slave he still improved his quality of life. Isn't that example of meritocracy?

Can not meritocracy exist within a hegemony?

quote:

Originally posted by Fighting Illini:
Can not meritocracy exist within a hegemony?

Nope, not if you're one of the marginalized. If systemic thinking is in place to sustain the hegemonic order, then no amount of "merit" will help you overcome marginalization. For that matter, the same applies to those who are stratified WITHIN the inner-balance of hegemony.

quote:

Originally posted by Fighting Illini:
Could you please expand your thoughts? How is meritocracy a myth?

Meritocracy does not take into account ACCESS. And access, my friend, makes all the difference.

quote:

Originally posted by Fighting Illini:
Despite being the grandson of a slave he still improved his quality of life. Isn't that example of meritocracy?

Nope. Improvement of one's quality of life is not the same as being rewarded by society at large for one's work, accomplishments, and "merit" in the world.

quote:

Originally posted by e:

quote:

Originally posted by Fighting Illini:
Can not meritocracy exist within a hegemony?

Nope, not if you're one of the marginalized. If systemic thinking is in place to sustain the hegemonic order, then no amount of "merit" will help you overcome marginalization. For that matter, the same applies to those who are stratified WITHIN the inner-balance of hegemony.

e, could you give me a specific example instead of using all this theoretical jargon?

quote:

Originally posted by Fighting Illini:

quote:

Originally posted by e:

quote:

Originally posted by Fighting Illini:
Can not meritocracy exist within a hegemony?

Nope, not if you're one of the marginalized. If systemic thinking is in place to sustain the hegemonic order, then no amount of "merit" will help you overcome marginalization. For that matter, the same applies to those who are stratified WITHIN the inner-balance of hegemony.

e, could you give me a specific example instead of using all this theoretical jargon?

I'd be happy to do so. What would you like a specific example of?

Let's say a poor inner city person with no wealth or education who becomes a rap star and is rewarded with millions of dollars or someone like Warren Buffett?

quote:

Originally posted by Fighting Illini:
Let's say a poor inner city person with no wealth or education who becomes a rap star and is rewarded with millions of dollars or someone like Warren Buffett?

e, You are arguing that "If systemic thinking is in place to sustain the hegemonic order, then no amount of "merit" will help you overcome marginalization." While Fighting Illini is contending with the example of a Rap Star.
I may be misreading the statements by not understanding the coded jargon (assuming that Inner City and hegemonic order are examples of jargon that carry implications beyond their basic definitions)
What I am seeing is a comment that success in rap music is meritocracy at work as a repudiation of your arguement that the hegemonic order prevents meritocracy functions. I don't think the succes on merit of a Rap Star does repudiate your arguement. It does argue for the fact of meritocracy within the entertainment establisment, but that is a highly fractionalized establishment.
On broader terms, the fact is that if you are denied opportunity to demonstrate merit, you are denied success.
I think that is e's arguement. And it does not fall to Fighting Illini's countering example of the Rap Star though it is damaged.

A meritocracy does not deny opportunity to anyone in any field, and because denial of opportunity on the basis of an assumed supremacy of one group over another denies opportunity to compete it denies meritocracy.
AND WHAT HAS ANY OF THIS GOT TO DO WITH SUPPORTING THE TROOPS?

yes, Percy Julian overcame the hegemony to attain a level of success not known to many. In fact he became a millionaire selling refined hormones and hormone precursors to Pharmacutical Companies. But he was denied at PhD from Harvard after three years in the program, and went to Vienna, where he did obtain, not only a PhD but a high complement from his Professor, who said he was the BEST STUDENT THE PROFESSOR EVER HAD. He was then denied employment by duPont, because they "don't hire negro research chemists." He taught at Howard, and De Paul, his alma mater, got driven out by in house political issues, and after a desperate search for work in private industry he was hired by Glidden Paint Company, where he developed a method for extracting cortesone from soya beans.
In his Spare Time. He had 90 patents at Glidden, and was paid well while he worked there, but each patent went to Glidden for a dollar apiece.
Yes, his success could be called meritocracy at work. It could also be called half what he could have accomplished if DUPONT HAD HIRED HIM.

In today's world there is no doubt that Percy would have received a PhD from Harvard and a top job at DuPont. I just think what e is trying to say has to do more with absolute power than success. I agree that some people who are extremely wealthy and successful will never have a chance to get into a powerful position on a political level. However, my point is that there are so many self-made millionaires and successful people in this country despite some of their disadvantages in race or gender. I truly believe that most people want to be wealthy and successful only to provide for their family and have the ability to make their own choices not to become powerful rulers.

quote:

Originally posted by Fighting Illini:
In today's world there is no doubt that Percy would have received a PhD from Harvard and a top job at DuPont. I just think what e is trying to say has to do more with absolute power than success. I agree that some people who are extremely wealthy and successful will never have a chance to get into a powerful position on a political level. However, my point is that there are so many self-made millionaires and successful people in this country despite some of their disadvantages in race or gender. I truly believe that most people want to be wealthy and successful only to provide for their family and have the ability to make their own choices not to become powerful rulers.

Basically that is the position I have taken. We do not have a meritocracy because we deny opportunity to people who have the aptitude and ambition, but are frustrated by the Cultural prejudices, The groups include people like Hawkings, and Julian, Condi Rice and others. It is those "others" I think are the ones we need to find and provide opportunity to.
Think of it this way, I have a goldpan with mud in it. Some of the contents are gravel, and some gold. When I look into the pan it appears to be all mud, but if I carefully wash away the soil and then pick out the gravel, I may just have the gold that was hidden in the mud. By insisting that one style of person is superior to another style of person, we toss out all the gold in the "inferior" style. Our language has expressions that describe this, "Diamond in the rough" is one of them, indicating that the aptitudes and abilities of the genius need to be nurtured and trained. "Throwing out the baby with the bathwater," meaning that you should not dump everyone in a group because there are great people in that group if you take the time to find them.

I believe that this country gives everyone the opportunity to become successful through free education. There are still those who refuse to use this as a trampoline to bigger and better things because they are too lazy and would rather have the government take care of them. In our society the rewards are great for those who strive for greatness but it can be cruel for those who would rather be lazy and settle on government for their needs.

quote:

Originally posted by Fighting Illini:
I believe that this country gives everyone the opportunity to become successful through free education. There are still those who refuse to use this as a trampoline to bigger and better things because they are too lazy and would rather have the government take care of them. In our society the rewards are great for those who strive for greatness but it can be cruel for those who would rather be lazy and settle on government for their needs.

FI,
Let me start by putting the "lazy" argument to the wayside. Sure, there are lazy people in the world, and I understand your point here. Now, let's talk about everyone else, those who "strive for greatness."

You wrote: "I just think what e is trying to say has to do more with absolute power than success." Well, actually it's about both. They are just on opposite sides of the spectrum.

You wrote: "However, my point is that there are so many self-made millionaires and successful people in this country despite some of their disadvantages in race or gender. "

How those issues come to be disadvantages, and how those play out, is the exact point here. Why should they be disadvantages? Why do some "become successful" while other "become successful DESPITE (fill in the blank)." And how does that 'despite' aspect have an impact on their ability to succeed, regardless of how much effort and aptitude they have? Ay, there's the rub.

You asked for an example. I know you specifically requested that I explain a rapper, but I think you will get my point all the same from the following:

Let's say that we have two guys who are friends - John and Joe. Both are the same age, they went to the same schools, they made the same grades, and they are in roughly equal physical shape. I invite John and Joe to a basketball court. I tell them that I am willing to give EACH of them 5 billion dollars for making ONE basket. Furthermore, they have a month to practice their shots. They both rejoice, knowing that they've seen the court before, this isn't their first game, and they've got a month to practice anyway.

They go to their respective homes. Each has been on the school's basketball team, and each has shown "aptitude" on the court. Each is a hard worker. They practice and practice and practice. They are ready.

They come back to the court. I put John on the free-throw line and say, "Go for it." This is a breeze, he thinks. Joe's thinking the same thing. After all, they've both been practicing. John shoots. It goes in. Five billion goes to John.

Now, I turn to Joe. I lead him over to the free-throw line on the opposite side of the court. Then, I turn him around and point to the goal that John just hit. "Throw it in," I say. He shoots, and he obviously misses. "I'm so sorry," I shrug.

See? It's all about ACCESS. Now John might offer to give Joe some of his cash, but the average person doesn't. Either way, we have a situation where two people were equally gifted, both worked hard, both tried, and yet one gained due to access while the other was left behind due to lack of access. Joe can go on to live a "successful" life, but he can't be held responsible for not being able to have that 5 billion in his hands.

Thank you for the example, but your example has some flaws in my opinion. The person without the access, Joe can sidestep this process by forming his own membership, so to speak. People, who start their own businesses and become rich, might not have had the original access but now they have created their own access.

In a perfect world there is no access, however in reality there is. The way to fix this problem is not through distribution of wealth, though. It's is to create independence from the needing to have access. That is how a rapper, myself, or anybody else can succeed.

quote:

Originally posted by Fighting Illini:
Thank you for the example, but your example has some flaws in my opinion. The person without the access, Joe can sidestep this process by forming his own membership, so to speak. People, who start their own businesses and become rich, might not have had the original access but now they have created their own access.

In a perfect world there is no access, however in reality there is. The way to fix this problem is not through distribution of wealth, though. It's is to create independence from the needing to have access. That is how a rapper, myself, or anybody else can succeed.

Here is one counter-argument to the alleged flaw that you cited. Why can one person easily sail through the system, and yet another person has to "sidestep" that process? Sure, life's not fair and we have to do what we have to do. But why is our society set up SYSTEMICALLY such that some types of people have to continously work to "sidestep" or work around a system that is set up specifically in such a way, while other types of people rarely have to think about such things?

Secondly, you wrote: "The way to fix this problem is [...] to create independence from the needing to have access.

I agree! As long as everyone has equal independence from that need...and everyone has the same amount of access as well.

I guess the real question is, "how does everyone get the same ease to access"?