Bill Lear writes about Carter and Bush:
>That's because yes, there is a significant difference in
>attitude of this faction of the ruling party, though not
>really in results. The differences are little more than
>mere window dressing, which is not to say I don't want
>Bush and his gang of splendid beasts to go down in flames,
>nor that the differences don't mean even more misery for
>those on the wrong end of the stick.
I know you have spoken in this thread about "preaching to the choir."
My guess is you are now doing a kind of "anti-preaching" to the choir?
(But what the hell do I know?)
Still, I don't think you can dismiss ephemeral improvement as "window
dressing." Carter and Bush are leagues apart.
Both men will die. At the end of their lives, what have they done? Did a
few more people live (etc.)?
These sound like tiny improvements, but they are STILL improvements.
You are talking about being realistic in non-choir reception of
rhetoric... well, apply your own standards. Carter is FAR MORE
acceptable than Bush to the non-choir. Don't shit on him when you want
better propaganda to the non-choir.
Ken.
--
The criminal moreover produces the whole of the police and of criminal
justice, constables, judges, hangmen, juries, etc; and all these
different lines of business, which form equally many categories of the
social division of labour, develop different capacities of the human
spirit, create new needs and new ways of satisfying them. Torture alone
has given rise to the most ingenious mechanical inventions, and employed
many honourable craftsmen in the production of its instruments.
-- Karl Marx
Theories of Surplus Value
