Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
When Compromise Looks More Like Sophie's Choice
By Carol MorganIn 1911, industrialist Richard Teller Crane remarked that one who has “a taste for literature has no right to be happy” because “the only men entitled to happiness are those who are useful.” Railroad king Jay Gould believed that humans were expendable commodities. “I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half.” Is any of this sounding familiar? Where the lowest and most immoral human instincts are concerned, the past is never really the past.
One hundred years later, we see this same philosophy of usefulness and utility; a Randian concept which holds a disturbing philosophy: Only those who PRODUCE deserve to live. The common man has been hypnotized to believe this is true. The decadence of our language proves this out. We attach the word “investment” to things that aren’t financial. We’ve commodified college degrees, childhood, blood plasma and human organs.
The concept of INO’s (in name only) is the grand deception of the millennia. In labels, we trust; but we shouldn’t. It’s not limited to political parties; it even pervades non-profits, those groups who supposedly work for social justice. The top thirty-four charity executives earn over a million dollars a year. It’s the outflow of the language of the corporate world, where we seek to “brand” ourselves and instead of writing down our dreams, we compose a personal mission statement. The era of M.E., Inc. a limited liability corporation.
-snip-
It makes me ask the question: At what point does a Democrat cease to be a Democrat? When does a Republican cease to be a Republican? Is a Moderate anything really telling the truth or are they simply trying to appeal to the voter? When does a nonprofit cease to be a nonprofit? Do labels mean anything anymore?
One hundred years later, we see this same philosophy of usefulness and utility; a Randian concept which holds a disturbing philosophy: Only those who PRODUCE deserve to live. The common man has been hypnotized to believe this is true. The decadence of our language proves this out. We attach the word “investment” to things that aren’t financial. We’ve commodified college degrees, childhood, blood plasma and human organs.
The concept of INO’s (in name only) is the grand deception of the millennia. In labels, we trust; but we shouldn’t. It’s not limited to political parties; it even pervades non-profits, those groups who supposedly work for social justice. The top thirty-four charity executives earn over a million dollars a year. It’s the outflow of the language of the corporate world, where we seek to “brand” ourselves and instead of writing down our dreams, we compose a personal mission statement. The era of M.E., Inc. a limited liability corporation.
-snip-
It makes me ask the question: At what point does a Democrat cease to be a Democrat? When does a Republican cease to be a Republican? Is a Moderate anything really telling the truth or are they simply trying to appeal to the voter? When does a nonprofit cease to be a nonprofit? Do labels mean anything anymore?
The complete article is at http://lubbockonline.com/interact/blog-post/carol-morgan/2013-12-11/when-compromise-looks-more-sophies-choice .