I'm not Carl and I haven't followed this thread. I just looked at Evan's post
and it occurs to me that what journalism is supposed to do is to provide facts
and give context for the factds. That means historical context and current
background. It's supposed to be objective which means that it should be
independent from corporate or government influence. That's the ideal.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Evan Reese
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2018 12:30 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: New member
Hmmm, so if the newspapers and radio broadcasts expressed views you didn't
agree with, they were part of the oligarchy, and if they expressed liberal
views, they were only faking it? How does anyone win under your criteria? Do
media sources have to agree with you 100 percent of the time to be considered
legitimate? Or is it only 90 percent? What evidence do you have that when they
expressed liberal views they were only engaging in pretense?
Is it really so far beyond conception that these newspapers and radio
broadcasts might express genuine views that agree with yours?
Sorry Carl, but you appear to want to have it both ways. You condemn this
so-called oligarchy when it goes against your views, then deny the legitimacy
of their views when they do agree with you. Now is that really fair?
Evan
-----Original Message-----
From: Carl Jarvis
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2018 11:13 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Evan Reese
Subject: Re: [blind-democracy] Re: New member
Interesting background, Roger.
We share many similar threads in each of our Tapestries of Life, as well as
those unique to those experiences that shaped the individuals we now are. One
thread we do share is our opposition to violence, but our recognition that it
is often the outcome of oppression.
Living most of my adult life as a totally blind man, and the first 29 years as
a visually impaired person, I look back and see a pretty decent demonstration
in my own life, of peacefully defending myself and my family, and picking our
way through a countryside fraught with social landmines.
Fortunately I have never had my back against the wall, forced to surrender or
fight. But my instincts tell me that given such a decision, I would fight.
My own beginnings were during the Great Depression. FDR had not yet completed
his first term in office. But already he had forced concessions by the
American Oligarchy. My parents, working class folks, were thrilled by the
changes. Social Security was probably the big one, but the jobs programs were
life changing for so many families.
But life for a small boy was confusing. The daily newspapers and the radio
broadcasts were owned by the long established Oligarchy, but played games with
the American People, often appearing to hold "Liberal" views. And of course
there was the "Good War", surrounded with so much propaganda, and the attack on
Labor Unions and Left Wing political parties such as the American Communist
Party, that a young boy had a difficult time making sense out of the world.
I did go through a period when I believed that the solution to our problems
would be an all out war on our enemies of that time...Communism. And I did
waste ten years as a Born Again Christian.
I also spent years working within the Democratic Party, trying to effect change
as it related to the social needs of the working class and, in particular of
blind people.
All of my own experiences have brought me to a place where I see our nation's
democratic Republic form taken over by the Pentagon and its Corporate
Profiteers. I suppose that "Coup" would be the term I'd choose. On the
surface A quiet, mostly peaceful Coup. Well protected by its Corporate Media.
And, in truth, I can't see any way out other than either giving up and
surrendering what freedom we do have, or erupting in violent revolution.
At 83, I probably will not be around to see how this all plays out...darnit!
Carl Jarvis
On 10-26/18, Roger Loran Bailey <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Is there really any such thing as peaceful revolution though? I am all
for peace and always have been. Let me tell you something about my
history. Most radicals my age say that they were radicalized by the
Kent State massacre. For me, though, it was the police riot in Chicago
during the Democrat convention in 1968. I was fourteen years old and
watched that on television and was appalled at those cops. Before that
time I had already developed some progressive ideas on my own, but as
a young teenager - as opposed to an older teenager - I had other ideas
about how social systems could be improved that now strike me as downright
nutty.
But as I watched what was happening in Chicago I completely took the
side of the protestors. So I became more and more interested in the
anti-war movement and secondarily in the civil rights movement. I
think it was the anti-war movement, though, that solidified my
radicalism. The trend in the anti-war movement that most influenced me
was the pacifist trend. It did not take much convincing to convince me
that it was insane to march off to murder and be murdered by people
that one had nothing against and that it was out and out criminal to
order and force people to do that. If I was sent off to war it was
clear to me that it would be by and for people who did not have my
interests nor the interests of any of the people I cared about in mind
and the whole idea of that really angered me. At the same time I was
busy sorting out the good guys from the bad guys and trying to figure
out which were the good guys and who were the bad guys. Certain categories
became pretty clear immediately.
Right-wingers were bad guys. Republicrat politicians were bad guys.
Anti-war demonstrators were good guys. Civil rights activists were
good guys. I also happened to notice that the right-wingers engaged in
a lot of name calling and one of the most frequent names that they
used to call the anti-war crowd and the civil rights activists by was
communist.
That told me that if those kind of people were against communists then
the communists must be the good guys. So I started looking into what
communism was all about. They always seemed to be on the right side of
the issues that interested me, my side. But one thing that really
intrigued me was that they called themselves scientific. I had always
been and still am a science buff and so that intrigued me enough that
I decided that I had to look into them especially closely. I was
interested in them enough that I sought them out and met some
communists. I was impressed. They were very decent people and, most
importantly, they were on the right side of the right issues. However,
there was something that really bothered me. Communists kill people.
Here I was a pacifist and I was admiring a movement that engaged in
war and killed people. This was a real dilemma for me and I was
flailing around trying to find a way to reconcile it. Finally I read a
book that turned out, in retrospect, to be the one book that probably
influenced me more than any other book in my life. It was Socialism On
Trial by James P. Cannon. I do recommend that book and it is a pretty
short one too, but I do not expect that it will have the same effect
on others that it did on me. It effected me so much because I was
right in the middle of my dilemma when I read it and it did help me
make that reconciliation that I was flailing about for. It happens
that in the early 1940s James Cannon and other leaders of his party
were arrested under the Smith Act and put on trial for sedition. They
were convicted of sedition too and were sent to prison. The book
consists of transcripts from the trial. In order to convict him the
prosecutor was asking questions about revolutionary violence so as to
prove that Cannon advocated the violent overthrow of the government.
Cannon explained it this way. We would really prefer to implement our
ideas by the peaceful means of getting our candidates elected and then
by proceeding to change the laws and amend the constitution and we
definitely do not advocate violence. The trouble with that is that a
study of history shows that a change in economic and social systems
never happens that way. In any class society the people in the lower
classes will feel resentment at being ruled over by the people in the
higher classes. They will take actions to try to make the system more
fair and equitable. These actions may take the form of petitioning the
rulers or they may take the form of demonstrating or forming
organizations like unions that will represent the interests of the
lower classes. One thing they do not want, though, is violence. It is
clear that even though they may be in the majority when violence
breaks out that it will mean violence against themselves as well as
against the rulers. It will mean the devastation of farm land and
thereby the capacity to produce food and it will mean the destruction
of many of the means of production which are the livelihood of the
people trying to bring about change. And violence does not break out
immediately either. As the lower classes push for a more fair and
democratic system they sometimes make gains, but the rulers never want
to give up their power and privilege. When the lower classes do make
gains they have to pressure their rulers into making the concessions
that make for the gains. Whenever the pressure eases off the rulers
always take back their concessions and the ruled have to push for the
concessions again. This process is called the class struggle and human
history is pretty much a record of that class struggle. Eventually the
contradictions between the classes sharpen to the point that the ruled
classes start to make great gains and the rulers see that they just
might be in real danger of losing their power and privilege. There are
no examples in history in which the ruling class just gave up their
power and allowed for a democratic society to triumph. Every single
time the rulers are in actual danger of being overthrown by the social
forces in play they hold onto their power by any means necessary and
that includes striking out violently. The oppressed classes have the
choice of lying down and dying and having their survivors oppressed
even more than they already were or to defend themselves. That tends
to spiral into civil war. And every revolutionary war is a war of self
defense because each and every time it is the rulers who start the violence.
Now, pacifist that I was my pacifism did allow for self defense. Just
sitting back and letting yourself be killed to preserve your pacifism
struck me as insane as the act of going off to war to murder people
you have nothing against. So I was able to reconcile my pacifism with
the goals and methods of the communist movement and my dilemma was resolved.
I was able to go on to become a communist activist and the only
violence I ever encountered in my political activism was violence that
was perpetrated against me and my comrades. And I did see some of
that. The worse against myself was being punched in the gut so hard
that I had to gasp for breath for a long time. I don't count all the
threats and having had guns shown to me with the implication that they
might be used against me. The worst I ever saw happen to a comrade,
though, was a comrade who got punched in the head so hard that the
group of us who were attending a striking coal miners rally had to
take him to a hospital and he turned out to have amnesia. He got
better, but I heard years later that he still did not remember the
events of that day even before he got bonked. Still, though, I don't
think my pacifism has changed since I was a young teenager. I am still
opposed to war and I am still opposed to individual violence. But just
like I was when I was a young teenager I still allow for violence in
self defense. The difference in my position from what it was when I
was a young teenager is that I see violence in certain situations as
inevitable and that in addition to self defense I think it is a good
idea to take control of the situation when violence breaks out to
bring about the best possible outcome from a choice of bad outcomes.
_________________________________________________________________
Isaac Asimov
“Don't you believe in flying saucers, they ask me? Don't you believe
in telepathy? — in ancient astronauts? — in the Bermuda triangle? — in
life after death?
No, I reply. No, no, no, no, and again no.
One person recently, goaded into desperation by the litany of
unrelieved negation, burst out "Don't you believe in anything?"
Yes", I said. "I believe in evidence. I believe in observation,
measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll
believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is
evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however,
the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be.”
― Isaac Asimov
On 10/25/2018 10:40 AM, Evan Reese wrote:
Sure, I'd be into peaceful revolution. It would depend on the kind of
revolution of course. In principle though, I'd certainly prefer that
to the kind that often occur. I was thinking of those more destructive
kinds, particularly the kind Roger's ideology generally talks about
when I was addressing Mary.
Evan
-----Original Message----- From: Miriam Vieni
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2018 9:45 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: New member
Evan,
What about peaceful change as revolution? That's about the only kind
of revolution I'd support. The problem is, it doesn't seem as if
powerful social forces can be controlled.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Evan Reese
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2018 4:48 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: New member
I would like to add my voice to the welcomes, Mary.
I've seen you on other lists. You seem pretty tech savvy, which is cool.
I am also new here. I joined last week. On social issues I'm
definitely left of center, but on economic issues I'm in the center,
or maybe even a bit to the right. I support the current economic
system. I defend the "capitalist running dogs" around here. (Yes, some
people actually talked like that in the 20th century. Fortunately,
humanity has moved on since then. Mostly that
is.)
Seriously though, I am more than happy to talk about shortcomings of
the current economic model and how to fix them, but I'm not interested
in revolution. I'm with John Lennon:
But when you talk about destruction,
Don'tcha know that you can count me out.
So once again, welcome. I hope you enjoy it here.
Evan
-----Original Message-----
From: Carl Jarvis
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2018 11:50 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: New member
Hello and welcome, Mary.
If you have a natural curiosity and a sense of adventure, you've come
to the right list. We do try hard to stay on target and not fall into
name calling, as happens on the ACB chat list at times. But a good
sense of humor and a moderately thick skin, and you'll soon be right
at home.
As for me, besides being Carl Jarvis, I am a self proclaimed
Progressive, an Agnostic, and 83 years old. My wife and I provide
services to older blind and low vision folks on the Great Olympic
Peninsula, through our organization named, Peninsula Rehabilitation
Services. We've been at it almost 24 years and have worked with well
over 3,000 clients. I'm totally blind...for the past 55 years. Cathy
and I work as a team since living here in the deep, dark forest does
not allow a blind man the ability to travel to many of our clients alone.
And just for the record, eating, sleeping, working, vacationing and
breathing the same air day after day finds us still deeply in love
with one another.
Carl Jarvis
(PS. Cathy's horse is down this morning. She's called the vet and is
trying to get him up and moving. I was going to buy a new keyboard
today, but it's looking as if I'll have to make do with these sticky
keys for a while longer.)
On 10/23/18, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hello Mary,
This list is suddenly becoming busy. We've acquired two new members
and will, I believe, be acquiring another one. It's an ill wind that
blows no good, they say. I do believe we can thank Mr. Trump for the
rejuvenation of this list. At any rate, I'll forward one of the Real
News Network digests to the list. It's a website which has excellent
little news videos that you can listen to and also, there's a text of
each one, I believe. I'll forward one of the digests. You go to the
heading of the story in which you're interested, which is also a link,
and then, you move down until you find a play button and press enter.
If you find the website, you can sign up for your own digests. The
website is in Baltimore. Its founder, Paul Jay, comes from Canada,
and it does national, international, and local Baltimore news.
Some of my favorite people are on there: max Blumenthal, Ben Norton,
Dean Baker, etc.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Mary Otten
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2018 8:44 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] New member
Hi folks,
I just joined this list, of whose existence I had no idea until a
friend forwarded me a book recommendation from one of the BARD lists,
where this list was mentioned. I recognize Miriam's name from the
bookshare list of many years ago. We liked lots of the same books on
political/historical topics. Anyway, I joined out of curiosity to see
what the list was like.
I've seen a couple posts, one of which mentioned the real news
network, with which I am not familiar. what is it?
Mary
