Does "just ice" mean a raw power play that government allows? If so, what
does "the strong doing what they will" have to do with millions of people
dying from a monkey virus?
What does the sad case of police brutality in the wake of subduing a violent
and psychotic man in L.A. have to do with a distant epidemic? Are the
looters completely without responsibility for their own actions because
something ticks them off? Are looters completely without responsibility for
their own actions if the home team wins a championship? If their kid wins a
championship? If their kid wins a game of Monopoly? Are we requiring
limitless responsibility only of multi-nationals?
What does the air pollution in L.A. have to do with the fact that millions
of Africans don't have watches so they can't "time" their AIDS drugs to
prolong their lives, even when the drugs are available?
Maybe justice is the opposite of "just ice". Are the drug companies
*required* by artists to medicate patients (of any country) who can not
afford their products? Are the oil companies *required* by artists to keep
the Siberians warm in the winter? (And who decides exactly what temperature
is appropriate?) Are the multi-national food companies *required* by
artists to provide, deliver, and equably distribute food to the hungry? If
the multinationals are required to do that, don't the family farmers also
have an obligation to provide, deliver, and equably distribute food to the
hungry? If so, what are the obligations of migrant workers, already on the
verge of poverty, to those starving on the other side of the globe?
Are Chinese bicycle manufactures *required* by artists to provide free
bicycles to L.A. residents because the manufacturers have the ability to
reduce oil consumption & clean up the air, saving lives, in L.A.? Are
Chinese holistic practioners *required* by artists to donate their services
and herbs to "heal" the people of America of cancer? Of obesity? Does
"Justice" require unlimited accountability across cultures?
Is she saying that Justice, if present, would not allow epidemics to exist,
merely because they hurt people? It seems simplistic to say, "Epidemic is
bad. Justice is good. Since epidemic, therefore no justice."
It's also pretty darned arrogant to *assume* that companies have the ability
to solve all of these problems. What if there are deadly side effects from
free AIDS drugs? Are the companies immune from prosecution? Who gets to
decide whether it's a good cause of action (and should be *required* by
artists)?
If a Chinese manufacturer provides a free bicycle to a city dweller, who
also believes in reducing oil consumption, is the manufacturer liable if the
city dweller rides directly into oncoming traffic and dies? Where does
responsibility end?
Getting back to what you said though, Bob,
"> The result of greed & lust would cause the AIDS, riots,
> pollution, etc."
I guess I disagree with the Joanster here. I don't think greed and lust
caused the AIDS virus. No more than greed and lust created the common cold.
The fact that it's passed by sexual contact doesn't mean that the virus was
*created* by sexual contact. I mean, if someone has sex but AIDS is not
involved, was there automatically shameful, sinful, lustful content? But if
AIDS is transmitted, suddenly the cause of the new case of AIDS is lust? It
doesn't add up. AIDS is not *caused* by lust. It's caused by a virus.
Now let's do riots. Was "greed and lust" at fault for that guy driving
drunk? Not to me. Was "greed and lust" to blame for the fact that the cops
ended up beating him because he wouldn't stop getting up? No, there's no
greed there. Lust is not a factor. Gross error, yes.
The only argument that stands up IMO, is that pollution is the result of
greed. If one is feeling charitable though, one could make the argument
that the first cases of pollution were acts of ignorance and only the
subsequent cases (when the damaging effects were known) resulted from greed.
I think that demonizing institutions is way too easy. If I remember right,
the song ends up,
"Sex sells everything
and sex kills."
Surely she's not calling for an end to sex because it lacks "justice". What
does it mean that the song begins by examining justice and ends by observing
that one of life's pleasures can also kill (an unfair, unjust condition)?
Is this a grand enumeration of many of the ways that "Shit happens" as they
say? I've always thought that she's scolding. Maybe not. Maybe she's
posing a question that no one has answered.
Maybe the answer is that she expects too much of life. She expects life to
be "just" but instead finds that life is
"Nasty, broodish and short." (who said that?)
As the Adam character once said in Northern Exposure, "Let me tell you
something, Ed. Nature is a *BITCH* my friend!"
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 2:12 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: "Just Ice" ?
>
>
> <<But what does a search for justice have to do with AIDS, riots,
> pollution,
> etc.? >>
>
> I would say that the answer is in the line where she breaks down
> the word...
>
> "Is justice just ice?
> Governed by greed and lust?"
>
> The result of greed & lust would cause the AIDS, riots,
> pollution, etc. It's probably also significant to say that she
> wrote the song in the wake of the LA riots.
>
> Bob
>
> NP: Luka Bloom, "Listen to the Hoofbeat"
>
All the best,
Lama
"When the going gets weird,
the weird turn pro." Hunter S. Thompson, PhD.
