everyone will get around to signing it.
art is the process of getting things out of your head and into the world
science is systematic falsification
WARNING: Human beings may contain the dna of pineapples, chihuahuas,
ladybugs, and even bacteria. Avoid humans at all costs.
Recently, I started looking into Obama's voting record, and I'm afraid
to say I'm not just uninspired: I'm downright fearful. This is a
candidate who says he's going to usher in change; that he is a different
kind of politician who has the skills to get things done. He reminds us
again and again that he had the foresight to oppose the war in Iraq. And
he seems to have a genuine interest in lifting up the poor. But his
record ... is one of accommodation and concession to the very political
powers that we need to rein in and oppose if we are to make truly
lasting advances.
Obama is far and away the best of the Big Three. Matt Gonzalez reminds
us why that's not nearly good enough.
Please read and comment. Thank you.
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Why_I_am_NOT_on_the_Obama_bandwagon
To Naomi Klein:
Looks like somebody on youtube compiled a collection of the (perceived)
gaps between how Friedman characterizes himself and how you characterize
him. Ignoring the uploader's dumb commentary, I think the clips
themselves are very good. You've probably seen them, but here they are:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2kTy7glZ9s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVUFyEY3gmo
Just so you know, I'm very much on your side here. I'm as far left as
they come and I want nothing more than to see real, solid, compelling
arguments for why socialism works and how we can implement it. When M.F.
says we have to judge policies by their effects and not by the
intentions behind them, or when he talks about how violence always lies
behind trying to good with other people's money, I'm dying to see these
arguments soundly refuted. Unfortunately, I'm not smart enough to refute
them myself, and when I look to someone smarter to do it for me, they
seem to be saying what amounts to "he's wrong because he's a big meanie".
In your book, you rightly point out that the battle of ideas was not
lost, and where Friedman's views have taken hold it's been through force
and not through consent. But having established that, your work is still
ahead of you. You still have to argue with the ideas, and attacking the
man behind them just looks like a way to avoid doing so. It's precisely
because I do agree with you and I do think you're right that it makes me
wince to see you use that kind of tactic.
No comments:
Post a Comment