BBC Blog Network

User Profile

eloquentOD

Listed below are comments made by eloquentOD between Friday, 19th September 2008 and Monday, 3rd November 2008.

«Newer
Older»

Soft imperalism 02:40am on 03 Nov 2008 The Obama brand will seduce the world, to use your terms, in the same way that Springsteen songs do now. I'm from Ireland, male, 38 years old, now living in Canada, and I grew up humming -- and singing! -- Springsteen songs in a small Irish town; so I know what you're talking about. Perhaps that was "soft imperialism"; but I wasn't bombed, and so such imperialism (if it is imperialism -- I'll get to that in a moment) seems infinitely superior to hard, military imperialism. Just a thought: if imperialism is the policy of extending one's country's power and influence through diplomacy or military force, as my dictionary would have me believe, then surely for any activity to be correctly described as imperialistic it must be undertaken with the more or less explicit intention of so extending power; this can hardly be said of Springsteen's music -- indeed, it would be an insult to Springsteen to attribute to him such ulterior motives! Propaganda can be imperialistic, as can military force. But unless we want to call Springsteen's music propaganda, then it's not imperialistic. Anyhow, having said that, if we allow for your "soft imperialism", then I think that the world will prefer it -- as I did in my childhood (unknowingly!) -- to being bombed or threatened by hard military imperialism.
Here comes the 'S' word 07:13am on 22 Oct 2008 I think that this is an excellent question, and observation, you have made regarding how the concept of "socialism" is viewed and understood in the US! For the record, I believe socialism is probably mistaken as a political philosophy. But it is still a valid philosophical position to take on political and economic questions. If I do take it, someone may disagree with me. But why the venom? Why does Joe the "plumber" want to protect himself against paying higher tax on an amount of money ($250,000) that he will most likely never earn? One answer, which has been canvassed by some in the press of late, is that he wants to retain the dream that he might some day make that sort of money, and, by golly, he doesn't want to have to "spread" it around if that happens! The Republicans excel at peddling that (false) dream. So yes, it's selfishness on the part of Joe. But it's curiously misguided. Like your trucker, Joe may be shooting himself in the foot: in the long meantime before he ever actually earns a quarter of a million dollars annually, Joe would have better health care, etc., if he were willing to endorse policies that -- like all taxation does, as you point out -- "spread" the wealth. And that is distinguishable from "socialism".
Too kind to burn witches 05:06am on 19 Sep 2008 # 1 -- "I do find it interesting that those who advocate the "right to choose" most loudly are those who have already had the priviledge [sic] of being born."

What other kinds of people are there, apart from those who have had the privilege of being born? None.

Is it the case that those who advocate the right to choose less loudly were not born? (That doesn't even make sense.)

I assume the point here is supposed to be something like the following: If you had the privilege of being born (who has not?), you are not entitled to advocate the right to choose. But this conclusion simply doesn't follow.

One has to have been born to express a view on anything. But the fact that one was, in fact, born places no constraints or restrictions, by itself, on what views one is allowed to express.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

eloquentOD