Letters to the Editor
-
@ L.W.M.
Think you're Long John Silver, do you? Well, no one said the human species was perfect; perfectable, maybe, but not perfect.
Reach for my beer cooler, dude, and your career in piracy becomes somewhat dubious. That's called the dialectic, which, at the point of application, is often uglier than the theorist supposes.
-
WT
My involvement in politics is really limited to working with various parents groups when my daughter was in school..
I made the observation though, that when there was work to be done there were always two major groups.
One group actually did the physical work at hand.. My wife and I managed the band booster concession stand for four years, at least we ran the physical part of it, cooking, cleaning, installing and maintaining equipment, training other parents in how to do the various things involved (getting anyone to properly clean the popcorn machine turned out to be impossible, we ended up doing it every time).
The other group were the ones who stood (or sat) around and talked, about what I'm not sure but they did a lot of talking.
Back to the concession stand, my wife and I were put in charge of the physical operations of the unit, but when it came down to handling the finances we were not considered trustworthy enough for that.. Two or three of the "talkers" had to come and count the money and sequester it at the end of every game..
Invariably, those who had actual control over the truly important things were not those who pitched in and physically helped, they were the "talkers".
That is my view of society at large..
There are those who do and those who talk, and the talkers always end up in charge.
-
@ Aycharaych
Well, honestly, I have to say that my experience has been completely different. There's a lot of sweat equity in political influence. People tend to respect those who do the shitwork, and don't try to hog the stage. Over time, one learns to trust those who are trustworthy, and marginalize those who aren't. It's much more complex than that, of course -- in small groups, charismatic figures often hold sway for a time, and have to be resisted, etc. Still, the principle has held pretty well in every ad-hoc organization I've ever been active in, and in many of the more established organizations as well.
The closer you are to something, the more do-able it looks. Unlike some folks, I don't think that's an illusion.
-
W.T & 'A' had great reads.... a distrust pincher crabs, lobsters, and red lobster in the SHOP.
You mentioned the 'shop'....
My father called any workplace 'The Shop'....
He went to the basement 'Shop' to get a screwdriver, hammer, and a measuring tape.
At each day's departing for work at a 'Blue Collar' job he said, "I'm off to the circus shop."
Watching pundits speak the daily "news" he'd often groan and sigh, "What a bunch of jokers."
He say read books. Listen to every persons opinion in the 'Shop' And find out what's right for you, personally.
Read Study People.
Work with these tools. (He's put out both palms opened wide) "These are the best tools you got. Use these glorified hands." I can still remember him teaching me how to use a saw, a hammer, and read a tape ruler. He'd annoy me reaching over me to teach how to apply proper saw pressure and strokes. "Dad!"
Now I understand him much better.
He was such a good friend at the SHOP.
You made me want to honor my father.
The use of the working place 'Word' called, 'The Shop'....
-
@HRH
"There are those who do and those who talk, and the talkers always end up in charge."
On a national level, Harry Truman doesn't back up your theory. Dick Cheney doesn't either. I do agree that talkers do get too much attention. Look at what the Repugs have done through propaganda, lying and deception. Our media is supposed to filter out the talk from the facts and unfortunately far too many, as Glenn keeps pointing out, are just reporting talk.
-
So what has Ctheney actually *done*..
Seriously, I can't think of anything he has done other than talk.
Truman, maybe..
But politicians are in my experience, talkers and not doers.
-
Shiver me Timbermans!
Reach for my beer cooler, dude, and your career in piracy becomes somewhat dubious. That's called the dialectic, which, at the point of application, is often uglier than the theorist supposes.
It's supposed to go: "Reach for my beer cooler, dude, and you'll pull back a bloody stump. Arrrgh!" Is it Talk Like a Pirate Day? I love Talk Like a Pirate Day.
... Anarchism rests on two principles that seem to complement each other, but actually contradict each other. One is the principle that is properly individualist or libertarian, formulated by Wilhelm von Humboldt and chosen by Stuart Mill as the epigraph of his “Essay on Liberty”: “The great principle is the essential and absolute importance of human development in its richest diversity.” The other is the humanist or altruist principle which is translated on the economic plane by communist anarchism. That the individualist and humanist principles negate each other is proven by logic and fact. Either the individualist principle means nothing, or it is a demand in favor of that which differs and is unequal in individuals, in favor of those traits that make them different, separates them and, if need be, opposes them. On the contrary, humanism aims at the assimilation of humanity. Following the expression of M. Gide, its ideal is to make a reality of the expression “our like.” In fact, at the current time we see the antagonism of the two principles assert itself among the most insightful theoreticians of anarchism, and that logical and necessary antagonism cannot fail to bring about the breakup of anarchism as a political and social doctrine.
(...)
However we approach it, anarchism cannot reconcile the two antinomic terms, society and individual liberty. The free society that it dreams of is a contradiction in terms. It’s a piece of steel made of wood, a stick without an end. Speaking of anarchists Nietzsche wrote: “We can already read on all the walls and all the tables their word for the future: Free society. Free society? To be sure. But I think you know, my dear sirs, what we will build it with: Wood made of iron...” Individualism is clearer and more honest than anarchism. It places the state, society, and association on the same plane. It rejects them both and as far as this is possible tosses them overboard. “All associations have the defects of convents,” Vigny said.
Antisocial, individualism is openly immoralist. This is not true in an absolute fashion. In a Vigny pessimistic individualism is reconciled with a morally haughty stoicism, severe and pure. Even so, even in Vigny an immoralist element remains: a tendency to dis-idealize society, to separate and oppose the two terms society and morality, and to regard society as a fatal generator of cowardice, unintelligence, and hypocrisy...
(...)
Optimistic and idealistic, imbued with humanism and moralism, anarchism is a social dogmatism. It is a “cause” in the sense that Stirner gave this word. A “cause” is one thing, “the simple attitude of an individual soul” is another. A cause implies a common adherence to an idea, a shared belief and a devotion to that belief. Such is not individualism. Individualism is anti-dogmatic and little inclined to proselytism. It would gladly take as its motto Stirner’s phrase: “I have set my affair on nothing.” The true individualist doesn’t seek to communicate to others his own sensation of life and society. What would be the good of this? Omne individuum inefabile. Convinced of the diversity of temperaments and the uselessness of a single rule, he would gladly say with David Thoreau: “I would not have any one adopt my mode of living on any account; for, beside that before he has fairly learned it I may have found out another for myself, I desire that there may be as many different persons in the world as possible; but I would have each one be very careful to find out and pursue his own way, and not his father’s or his mother’s or his neighbor’s instead.” The individualist knows that there are temperaments that are refractory to individualism and that it would be ridiculous to want to convince them. In the eyes of a thinker in love with solitude and independence, a contemplative, a pure adept of the inner life, like Vigny, social life and its agitations seem to be something artificial, rigged, excluding any true and strongly felt sentiments. And conversely, those who by their temperament feel an imperious need for life and social action, those who throw themselves into the melee, those who have political and social enthusiasm, those who believe in the virtues of leagues and groups, those who have forever on their lips the words “The Idea,” “The Cause,” those who believe that tomorrow will bring something new and great, these people necessarily misunderstand and disdain the contemplative, who lowers before the crowd the harrow of which Vigny spoke. Inner life and social action are two things that are mutually exclusive. The two kinds of souls are not made to understand each other...